Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 14 June.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered upon Thursday 14 June.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

PIECE HALL (HALIFAX) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 14 June.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12 June at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULUTRE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Drainage

Mr. Yeo: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department expects to produce a review of drainage.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will complete his current review of drainage policy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The preparatory work in connection with the review has now been completed and I and my colleagues intend to issue a consultation paper during the summer.

Mr. Yeo: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that there is great concern at the non-appearance of the review at a time when some of the country's finest

wetlands, such as Halvergate marshes in Norfolk, are under threat, and that it is unacceptable to envisage the destruction of those wetlands with the use of public subsidies?

Mrs. Fenner: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I can only assure him that the review has taken some time to complete because of the complex issues involved, but that we seek to publish the consultation document this summer.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: When the review appears, will my hon. Friend ensure that the cost-benefit analyses for large drainage schemes are at last subject to public scrutiny? Does she accept that it is very seldom that truly confidential material is revealed by these analyses, and that when scarce habitats are being drained using public money, public interest demands disclosure?

Mrs. Fenner: Officials have considered the possibility of limited disclosure of the results of cost-benefit assessments, and their conclusions will also be included in the consultation paper.

Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend comment on the general charge that there is little point in draining scarce wetland at public expense in order to produce agricultural surpluses?

Mrs. Fenner: Very often, the lands drained are not involved in producing the surpluses of the moment.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the hon. Lady specifically consider the problem of Wakefield? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) is in major difficulty, as the process of draining upstream is causing tremendous damage in the city.

Mrs. Fenner: We have arranged a number of meetings on the matter. We are very conscious of the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and will keep the matter under review.

Daisy Products

Mr. Nicholls: asked the Minister of Agriculture., Fisheries and Food if he will estimate by what amount the diary product quotas for the United Kingdom recently negotiated with the European Economic Community could be increased if no special arrangements were made for imports of New Zealand dairy products.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The guaranteed quantities for milk under the supplementary levy system are based on. past production levels. No account was taken of imports.

Mr. Nicholls: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but will he in turn accept that the mere fact that this country imports dairy products from New Zealand must undermine our position in quota negotiations? Even those who, like myself, are not in favour of breaking off our historic links with New Zealand have to accept that the small dairy farmers, who are facing grave financial hardship, might not see the force of that argument.

Mr. Jopling: The full quota for New Zeland butter in 1984 was not decided in the midst of other decisions that were taken in Brussels in March. Indeed, the matter is still progressing. To put it in perspective, my hon. Friend might like to note that the 1983 quota represented less than 4 per cent. of total Community butter production.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure the Minister is aware that British dairy producers produce only 66 per cent. of the butter required by our consumers. Will he tell the House and dairy producers from which country or countries he will import the nearly 40 per cent. required in the next 12 months?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should examine the milk board's latest book on statistics. He will see on page 185 that the United Kingdom was 91 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat in 1982.

Mr. Charles Morrison: To what extent have imports of New Zealand butter been cut since Britain joined the Community, and what plans are there for further cuts? I believe that there is a lack of appreciation of the realities.

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is right. New Zealand producers have had to take large cuts which make the cuts faced by our producers seem comparatively modest. My hon. Friend might like to know that when we joined the Common Market New Zealand was sending us 165,000 tonnes of butter. Last year it sent 87,000 tonnes, and this year it is intended that New Zealand will send us 83,000 tonnes. That figure will decrease over five years to 75,000 tonnes.

Mr. Deakins: For how long must the process of degressivity in New Zealand dairy produce imports to Britain continue? When will it end?

Mr. Jopling: The present Commission proposal—about the details of which I have just told the House—is for the first time, for a five-year period. That proposal is welcome to the New Zealand Government. There are no proposals beyond 1988. In the Dublin agreement there was an understanding that the Community had to give part of its market to New Zealand butter. That agreement had no end date.

Mr. Cockeram: Although I accept our obligation to New Zealand, will my right hon. Friend accept that Britain's milk industry would find it more acceptable if there were a long-term pledge to accept that New Zealand imports will have to continue to be reduced during the next decade?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Jopling: We should be extremely careful before making such statements. I strongly believe that we owe an immense debt to New Zealand and I am not prepared to see us pull the rug from under New Zealand at this or any other time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister recollect and confirm that when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister he gave certain pledges and guarantees to New Zealand that, when we joined the EEC, New Zealand's position would be respected and protected as far as possible? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we fully support the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in that commitment? Will the Minister stand firm and not allow any further reduction in imports of New Zealand's dairy products to the EEC?

Mr. Jopling: The undertakings given by the Community when we joined in the early 1970s have been fulfilled. The Commission's most recent proposal, which I have just explained to the House, is one which the New

Zealand Government are prepared to accept. We should continue to do our best to fulfill our obligations to New Zealand.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet placed in the Library complete details on the operation of the European Economic Community milk quota scheme.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress being made towards the implementation of milk quotas and the accompanying European Community and United Kingdom regulations.

Mr. Andrew Stewart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects to be able to make a statement concerning special cases of hardship resulting from the agreement in the Council of Ministers on quotas for the dairy industry.

Mr. Jopling: A number of the detailed arrangements relating to the operation of the supplementary levy arrangements have still to be worked out. These include those relating to direct sales, the outgoers scheme, and the reallocation and transfer arrangements for quotas. However, I intend to submit shortly for the approval of Parliament draft regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. These regulations will, among other things, lay down the arrangements for implementing the special case rules, including provision for appeals to an independent tribunal and local panels. Producers will be receiving preliminary guidance on the special case rules in the next few days.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do details on the operation of the scheme include proposals to deal with the problems being confronted by the milk processing industries and the Milk Marketing Board in particular? Is the Minister aware of a statement made by Mr. Geoffrey Barr, chief executive of the Milk Marketing Board, to his 13,000 employees, that they need to make a 20 per cent. cut in their operating costs? Does that not imply that there will be substantial redundancies, and do the Government intend to help in any way to avoid those redundancies?

Mr. Jopling: The effects on processing plants of the supplementary levy arrangements that have been agreed in the Community are a matter for the milk board, because they come under its control. The board is an independent organisation which looks after its own affairs.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is not my right hon. Friend only too well aware that the present situation is by no means the end of the story? Does he agree that it is of the utmost priority that we avoid a sudden introduction of measures to do with the dairy sector, cereals or anything else? Does he not think that that is all important for farmers' confidence?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will recollect that from July until almost the end of last year I was arguing—this was referred to in the House last night—that much the best way of dealing with the catastrophic surplus of milk in the Community was through the discipline of price, and that we did not wish to deal with that as a first priority through the supplementary levy scheme. I hope


that we shall have no more of these schemes and that we shall deal with individual commodities through the discipline of price.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Minister realise that individual farmers, not least those in Northern Ireland, are unable, three months into the year, to plan their milk production and operations?

Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that in the middle of April we gave to the vast majority of milk producers who deliver wholesale to the milk boards provisional quotas on which they have since been working. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman may have seen that in May the deliveries of milk were 4·2 per cent. down on the same month last year.

Sir Peter Mills: In this difficult situation of guotas and price restraint, is my right hon. Friend aware of the almost disgraceful statement by the alliance that it would increase the price of milk to the farmers? Is that not disgraceful, cynical and wholly unfair? Will he utterly condemn such misleading of my farmers?

Mr. Jopling: I have noticed statements that have been made by spokesmen for the alliance parties. All I can say is that if we had such policies they would be sure-fire recipe for even more catastrophic surpluses, overspending and bankruptcy than we are already experiencing.

Mr. Strang: Is it not clear that these measures will discriminate adversely against the British dairy industry, and is it not a scandal that farmers from the Republic of Ireland are coming here to buy our cull cows?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentlman should recall that in Germany and the Netherlands farmers are having to make larger cut-backs in milk production than farmers here. Therefore, his question is based on a fallacy.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of Britain the base year 1983 was a bad year for milk production? When he lays down the criteria for assessing special cases, and when he re-allocates the spare quota, will he bear those areas very much in mind?

Mr. Jopling: I am well aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers and I am also aware that Somerset is in particular difficulty. However, if one compares the milk production figures for 1983 with those of 1982, one sees that Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire were 2·3 per cent. up.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister be as prompt to condemn violence and criminal damage by dairy farmers protesting against Common Market policies as his Prime Minister has been to condemn violence on picket lines? Will he bear in mind that the £600 from his scheme to pay small farmers to take cows out of production and send them to the knacker's yard is £600 more than fishermen got when they were made redundant by the Common Market?

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry that the hon. Member is not able to be a little more welcoming to the scheme, which has been widely welcomed throughout the country and which will assist a very small minority of milk producers who want to go out of production to do so, so as to bring the bulk of small milk producers back to the level of production which they enjoyed in 1983.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that perhaps the worst feature of the situation is the continuing uncertainty? In his proposals for quotas, will he pay particular attention to producer-processors?

Mr. Jopling: In regard to the direct sellers to whom my hon. Friend has referred, we hope to be able to send guidance to them in a very short time. We have had a major difficulty about this because the Commission's figures were inaccurate. It did not translate its own figures into the regulations. We sorted this matter out finally only last Monday and we hope that in a very short time we can give guidance to the direct sellers.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: When I was visiting a cattle market in Wiltshire recently, some of the farmers said that the scheme the Government were introducing was simply an attempt to buy votes. That is not so, is it?

Mr. Jopling: It is only the right hon. Gentleman who could have such extraordinary thoughts. All I can say to him is that if we succeed, as we intend, in bringing 40 per cent. of milk producers—those with 40 or fewer cows—back to their 1983 patterns of production that will be much more important than anything to do with votes.

Mr. Farr: While I welcome the fact that the House will have the opportunity to discuss my right hon. Friend's proposals, may I ask whether he is aware that there they will be of critical importance to many producers? Will he consider tabling them, not as an order which cannot be amended, but rather in the form of a discussion document on which sensible suggestions from both sides can be made, because a number of important cases will have to be debated?

Mr. Jopling: I understand perfectly my hon. Friend's point, but there is a real dilemma, which I am sure he will understand. It is very important that at the earliest moment we get the forms and the final details of the scheme to milk producers so that they know the position. I think the House would wish to proceed by the quickest method so that we can clarify the situation and let all milk producers know their position.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has said frequently from the Dispatch Box and in letters to me and others that his decision on milk quotas has been a long time in the making. Why, then, were his officials, speaking through the Milk Marketing Board, saying to farmers in Somerset as late as February of this year that they should produce as much as they could?

Mr. Jopling: I notice that in a letter which the hon. Gentleman sent me dated 31 May he accused me personally of having said that. I had no recollection of doing so. I am interested to hear him say today that it was some nebulous official. Therefore, it would be better if he got his facts right.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since it is now more than two months since the regulations were supposed to apply, from 1 April, is it not disgraceful that there should be so much confusion and so little detail about the application of the scheme? Since we apparently share an objective in trying to protect small producers, why did the Minister not accept the scheme which I put to him, that they should be allowed to produce up to their 1983 quotas and that there should be re-allocations on a sliding scale to larger producers? Why did the Minister not do that instead of introducing a


half-baked scheme which he has said is widely welcomed, although I have no record from the farming press of that being so? It has been condemned as Jopling's milksop scheme turned sour.

Mr. Jopling: I urge the hon. Gentleman to read a good deal more of the farming press. If he reads the reports of the statements made by the president of the Farmers Union of Wales, he will find that it would not have been possible to give a warmer welcome to the scheme. I did not take up the hon. Gentleman's scheme because I thought that my scheme was much better. I was prepared to put £50 million where my mouth was.

Animal Welfare

Mr. Greenway: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on conditions at cattle markets and animal sales; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Fenner: The council is still engaged on its comprehensive review of the welfare of farm animals and horses at markets, and it is not yet possible to say when its report will be available.

Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind the cruelty by neglect that is suffered by calves, foals, horses and other animals in transit, will my hon. Friend extend the inquiry to the transportation of animals and use that as a lever to achieve a similar inquiry throughout the EC, bearing in mind that Russia and Poland export about 1 million horses to western European countries for slaughter every year? These horses are in transit for about 1,000 km without exercise, food or water over many days. That is disgraceful and cruel, and something should be done to prevent it.

Mrs. Fenner: We already have legislation that bears on the transit of live animals. In our negotiations and talks in Europe we constantly seek and, indeed achieve, harmonised directives so that our extremely good regulations shall hold sway throughout the European Community.

Cod Quotas

Mr. John Townend: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is considering putting forward proposals for cod quotas for specific regions of the North sea to be allocated to local fishermen.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The revised quota arrangements for North sea cod announced on 30 May include sectoral quotas for recognised groups, including producer organisations, which show the ability to manage a block allocation.

Mr. Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers' Organisation feels that it has not been treated fairly by his Ministry? Following a meeting in May it was given no indication of the specific action that it would have to take to ensure that it was allocated a quota. When the quotas were announced, it appeared to be the only FPO that had not been granted one. Will my hon. Friend instruct his civil servants to state specifically what the Yorkshire and Anglia FPO needs to do and urge them to co-operate with

the fishermen in this FPO area to the same extent as civil servants in the Scottish Office are co-operating with Scottish fishermen?

Mr. MacGregor: We are having thorough discussions with the Yorkshire and Anglia FPO about the measures that are needed to enable it to manage a block allocation satisfactorily. I shall be meeting members of the United Kingdom federation of FPOs on Monday on that and many other subjects. It is important to ensure that the information-gathering procedures are satisfactory and that there are disciplinary powers to enable the allocation of quotas to be carried through. I do not want to anticipate the outcome of the discussions, but I can assure my hon. Friend that discussions are taking place.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister accept the gratitude of Grimsby pair fishermen for the quotas, which represent an enormous improvement for them? Bearing in mind that Grimsby depends essentially on cod and that cod is the fish stock which has been cut in this year's allocations, will he attempt to obtain a greater allocation from Norway to compensate for the decline in our catches? Secondly, will he urge that the same tough quotas be imposed on our European partners as are imposed on our fishermen?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing the gratitude of Grimsby fishermen. He will know that when I was in Grimsby I discussed sectoral quotas and said that I was thinking actively about them. I am glad that it was not long after those discussions that I was able to take specific action. The hon. Gentleman may know that two of the three company groups with sectoral quotas in the United Kingdom are based on Grimsby. This flexibility will greatly help Grimsby.
We have raised constantly with the Commission and the Council of Ministers our discussions with Norway for the allocation of herring this year, and possible compensation.
The quotas apply to the other member states as well and it is important that they are all enforced properly. That is why we have constantly put strong emphasis on the importance of the European inspectorate, which is now in place.

Mr. Michael Brown: Following from the question, is my hon. Friend aware that some fishermen may not be able to take up the additional cod quota because they fish for other species? Will my hon. Friend consider further the possibility of transferring the cod quota system to other species?

Mr. MacGregor: That depends on the species that my hon. Friend has in mind. We are talking about pressure stocks. It is important that we meet the quotas for cod this year, not least for conservation reasons. How one reaches quotas in other pressure stocks will depend on how the scheme works during the year.

Surplus Food and Wine

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total European Economic Community spending on all activities, including agriculture, related to the disposal, destruction and storage of surplus food and wine in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what was the cash sum involved, expressed in £ sterling.

Mr. Jopling: Expenditure by the European Community on export refunds, internal disposal subsidies and public intervention storage for commodities in structural surplus — cereals, sugar, wine and milk products—amounted to approximately £4,750 million in 1983. That represented about 33 per cent. of total Community expenditure.

Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a performance in a private industry would probably lead to the imprisonment of the directors? Does he further agree that so long as the Community spends such vast sums within this total on subsidising the Soviet and east European war machine there is no reason to increase own resources?

Mr. Jopling: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would applaud what happened this year regarding the price settlement, in which we took steps to reduce surpluses. We extended the guarantee thresholds and introduced quotas for milk production. That settlement is important in the long term, not just for this year, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give it credit.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Does the Minister accept that the general agreement of this Government, or any other Government, to reduce expenditure on a wasteful facility such as storage would receive support from all hon. Members? Does he think that on 14 June the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will vote Conservative?

Mr. Jopling: As an ex-Chief Whip I can say that I was totally satisfied with my hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the rate of growth of common agricultural policy spending, I remind him that between 1973 and 1979 it rose by over 19 per cent. a year, whereas between 1979 and 1984 the average increase was only about 10 per cent.

Mr. Higgins: What reform of the CAP would my right hon. Friend consider to be sufficient to justify an increase in own resources?

Mr. Jopling: I am concerned with what the CAP should do. We should rely more on the discipline of price to avoid the growth of unwanted and unusable surpluses.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Torney: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the effect of the European Economic Community milk quota scheme on the numbers of (a) bankruptcies among dairy farmers, (b) redundancies among farm workers and (c) redundancies in the dairy processing and distributive industries.

Mr. Jopling: The effects of the quota system on producers, farm workers and the processing and distributive industries will depend to a large extent on how producers and dairies decide to adjust to the new arrangements.
Moreover, since production beyond the level of individual quotas is not prohibited it is not possible to say what will happen to production levels until the individual decisions taken start to work through the system.

Mr. Torney: In view of the Minister's inadequate answers about the milk quota scheme, does he agree that the Government have not thought through properly the effect on all sections of the industry of this milk quota

scheme, not only regarding bankruptcies and farmers going out of production, but the fact that gross unemployment will result in the distributive and processing industries, including those arising from the closing down of creameries? Is he aware that it has already been announced that some creameries will close as a result of the scheme? What will he do about it? Will he compensate the distributive side of the industry as well as the farmers?

Mr. Jopling: The effects of the quota system for milk must be dealt with by each group to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have no plans at present to provide compensation.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend introduce a provisional quota as a matter of extreme urgency to deal with those unfortunate farmers in my constituency who have been happily producing milk for years but who, because of a bureaucratic technicality, have been given no quota by the Milk Marketing Board? They have no hope of surviving until all the rules about special cases are finalised and published.

Mr. Jopling: We are moving forward very quickly and I hope that within the next few days we can give much more detail about this scheme. However, if my hon. Friend has any special cases in mind, he should have a word with me about them.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister at least confirm that there will be no bankruptcies or redundancies in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which have been excluded from the milk quota scheme? Why is that?

Mr. Jopling: As I am going to the Isle of Man tonight, I shall be in a better position after the weekend to answer that question.

Mr. Body: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Smallfarmers Association appreciates the way in which he listened to its representations and the way he acted? Will he bear in mind that from now on, when listening to representations about milk quotas, the National Farmers Union may not necessarily be speaking for the majority of dairy farmers, and that the Farmers Union of Wales and the Smallfarmers Associaion may have views very different from those of the NFU?

Mr. Jopling: I was glad to meet a delegation led by my hon. Friend and to hear those farmers' point of view, as I am glad to hear the views of any organisations which represent groups of farmers who wish to visit my Department.

Mr. Evans: Interposing a voice on behalf of the consumer, may I ask the Minister whether the British housewife can expect the price of a pint of milk to decrease as a result of the milk quota scheme?

Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Gentleman examines the statistics he will share with me much pleasure in the fact that during the past five years the cost of food has increased more slowly than have prices in general —[Interruption]—It is no use the hon. Gentleman scoffing. It is one reason why the Labour party lost the last election.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that 1983 was an especially bad year for dairy farming in Derbyshire, and will he consider the case for giving


Derbyshire special treatment? Will he accept the gratitude of farmers in my constituency for the fact that he has agreed to meet a delegation to discuss this matter?

Mr. Jopling: I shall give my hon. Friend a reply similar to the one I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). In 1983, milk production in Cheshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire was 2·7 per cent. more than it was in 1982.

Mr. Penhaligon: Can the Minister give one of my farmers a simple answer to a question? He has farmed milk for 20 years, but, unfortunately for him, he sold his farm 12 months ago and moved to a new farm. He has 70 cows and no quota. What is his position? How many cows will the Minister allow him to keep?

Mr. Jopling: We hope to give guidance in the near future to farmers who have changed farms.

Mr. Walden: Although I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the help that he announced for smaller dairy farmers, does he accept that many small to medium-sized dairy farmers fall between every conceivable stool in sight? This applies especially those who cannot diversify because their land is fragmented.

Mr. Jopling: I am especially worried about those farmers who do not have alternative enterprises. That is why I thought it right, as I said to the House yesterday evening, that we should give the first priority to farmers with fewer than 40 cows. To return them to 1983 production levels will take rather less than 1·5 per cent. of the quantity of milk produced, and after that we can examine our second priorities. I suspect that the farmers described by my hon. Friend would come within that consideration.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In answer to an earlier question the Minister accepted that he has responsibility for what happens in agriculture. As the right hon. Gentleman has signally failed consumers and producers, will he do the right thing and resign?

Mr. Jopling: During the period when the Labur party was in power the cost of food more than doubled. Bearing in mind that, during the past five years, the increase in the cost of food has been less than half the increase during the period of the Labour Government and that food prices have been increasing more slowly than prices in general, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a real cheek.

Pesticides

Dr. Twinn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the availability of imported pesticides so that the standards applied by United Kingdom manufacturers under the pesticides safety precautions scheme can be applied to all pesticides used in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Fenner: All pesticides intended for use in the United Kingdom, whether imported or home-produced, are subject to clearance under the pesticides safety precautions scheme — a formal but non-statutory agreement between the Government and the pesticides industry. However, the scheme has not been fully effective in regulating the import of uncleared pesticides, and for this reason the Government have decided to introduce statutory arrangements for ensuring the safe and efficient use of pesticides.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which I believe will be widely welcomed. There is growing concern about the indiscriminate use of pesticides. If a voluntary scheme is to work, it is clearly important that it should work for all pesticides. I hope that my hon. Friend shares that concern.

Mrs. Fenner: I shall respond to my hon. Friend's suggestion that there is indiscriminate use of pesticides. Already, our policy to contain use levels to the minimum consistent with efficient food production has enabled us to give priority to developments by ADAS of integrated pest control systems, better application methods, disease resistant crop varieties and better forecasting of pest and disease outbreaks.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friends and I welcome the proposals to legislate on this subject for the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mrs. Fenner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is correct.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the voluntary scheme has been unsuccessful? Will she bring forward proposals in the near future to promote safety, to reduce environmental pollution and to protect the position of United Kingdom manufacturers of pesticides?

Mrs. Fenner: We hope that it will be possible to bring forward proposals early in the next Session. I fully understand the viewpoint of firms which believe that uncleared imports have been undermining their position.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the regulations will apply to Northern Ireland, because there is some doubt about that? Will she make every effort to ensure that they are introduced before the end of this Session, because there will be every support from the Opposition for their immediate implementation?

Mrs. Fenner: I have said already that I believe they will be introduced at the beginning of the next Session. If the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will forgive me, I shall confirm or otherwise the application of the regulations to Northern Ireland.

Agricultural Policy

Mr. Marlow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what areas of agricultural policy he is seeking powers to obtain discretion for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jopling: The Government will continue to pursue the policies, both domestically and in the European Community, which are in the long-term interests of our agriculture industry and beneficial for the country as a whole.

Mr. Marlow: As I believe that some time next week there is to be an election, will my right hon. Friend do himself a favour by giving an undertaking to our dairy farmers that if, at any stage, there is a risk that we will be forced to import liquid milk from the Irish Republic, he will unilaterally increase our quota?

Mr. Jopling: Already there are arrangements, which have been going for a long time, for milk and milk products to be imported from other parts of the Community


and outside it. As, I believe, something is happening next week, my hon. Friend might like to know that since we joined the Common Market our agricultural output has increased by 14 per cent. in volume, our agricultural productivity per person has increased by 49 per cent., our agricultural exports have increased by 77 per cent. and our self-sufficiency in temperate foods has increased by 24 per cent. That sounds like pretty good medicine.

Potato Marketing Board

Mr. Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the workings of the Potato Marketing Board.

Mr. MacGregor: The Potato Marketing Board is a producer organisation and it is for registered producers themselves to say whether they are satisfied with the way in which the board carries out its functions.
The Government act jointly with the board over the market support arrangements and I announced on 29 February the Government's proposals for a revised system of support to take effect from the 1985 season.

Mr. Evans: I have noted with interest what was said in the Minister's speech during the Adjournment debate on Monday night. Can he explain to a layman like myself how the housewife and the British farmer benefit from potato acreage restrictions imposed by the board when, at the same time, thousands of tonnes of potatoes are imported from all over the world? Do not the actions of the Potato Marketing Board constitute a restraint on trade?

Mr. MacGregor: There is freedom of imports, so it is not a restraint on trade. The hon. Member will be aware that many of the imports are of early potatoes, which come in when we do not have them ourselves. The potato area has, indeed, declined by some 27 per cent. since 1970, although it must be borne in mind that there has been a trend of rising yields. Yields have increased by even more—30 per cent. over the same period.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements on Thursday 7 June.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply.
This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. This afternoon she will be receiving Heads of Government in preparation for the economic summit meeting.

Mr. Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have been justified in having a fully-manned and fully-equipped police force, which has enabled it to strengthen and maintain public order throughout the country? Does he further agree that in the face of violence and intimidation the police have done a marvellous job and are ensuring that Scargill and his travelling storm troopers do not succeed in bringing down the Government?

Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the valuable measures which the Government have undertaken is to enable resources to be available to secure

an increase of 14,000 in the number of police since 1979. All those who watch their televisions night after night will realise what a highly professional task they perform in securing one of the most socially worthwhile objectives—freedom under the law—and ensuring that those who wish to work may do so.

Mr. Mason: In his official capacity as protector of the House of Commons, will the Leader of the House explain why the Prime Minister constantly misled the House about her involvement in the miners' dispute, a fact of which he must have been completely aware? What will he do about it on our behalf?

Mr. Biffen: I will, of course, convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the point that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, which shows just how shallow and completely — [Interruption.] — bankrupt are the Labour party's comments in this context. The revelations of the Daily Mirror show that in these matters the Prime Minister and the Government have paid proper and prudent regard to the national interest.

Mr. Parris: Will my right hon. Friend have time to explain by what logic it is folly to win coal at twice the world market price but wisdom to carry on winning it at one-and-a-quarter times the world market price?

Mr. Biffen: I do not know whether I would have time, but much of my audience would be wholly unappreciative. All those who are contesting the National Coal Board's proposals are contesting what I believe to be the only strategy for prosperity — that of an industry is concentrated upon low-cost production.

Mr. Shore: The Leader of the House ought to be ashamed of the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). Is it not absolutely clear that, quite contrary to all the assertions that have been made again and again in the House, not only the Prime Minister but others of her colleagues have been intervening continuously in the pay negotiations conducted by nationalised industries? Far from having been left alone, the chairman of the British Railways Board has been treated like a puppet on a string. Is it not now time that the Leader of the House put to the Prime Minister the urgent need for her to come to the House and make a candid and honest statement about what the relationships are, because this has great relevance to the settlement of the coal dispute?

Mr. Biffen: Neither Mr. Reid nor any of his predecessors merits the term puppet. Certainly the correspondence reveals that Mr. Reid put to the Minister, for information, plans that he was proposing, and had them endorsed. There is no question whatsoever of this Government trying to sit on the shoulders of the managements of nationalised industries, as Governments did of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, and in which he personally tried to arrange for legislation which would supervise in every jot and tittle the payment of the public sector.

Mr. Shore: Is it not the case that the letters published yesterday reveal that the chairman of the Railways Board was actually instructed—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No"]—to keep in touch with the chairman of the Coal Board, and, further, not to approach the Attorney-General, presumably on whether he should use the 1982 Employment Act and its procedures?

Mr. Biffen: I certainly do not think that the correspondence bears that construction at all. What it shows is that this Government, having responsibilities to the public interest, the taxpayer and the industries where there is an enormous public financing content, have a very proper and prudent regard to the level of pay settlements.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross: In the absence of the Prime Minister, can the Leader of the House confirm that it is still Government policy to support free collective bargaining and unfettered arbitration in pay claims? If that is the case, what is the Government's policy where pay disputes arise in the public sector? Is it all just left to diktat from 10 Downing street?

Mr. Biffen: It is absolutely absurd to suppose that anything that has been revealed in the last few days indicates diktat from 10 Downing street. The freedom of collective bargaining in the current condition is there for all to see and contrasts with the statutory pay policies that were endorsed by the Liberal party.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no miner is currently facing compulsory redundancy as a result of the National Coal Board's plans and that the most immediate threat to miners' jobs is the irresponsible action of Mr. Arthur Scargill, which is putting at risk no fewer than 15 pits. Because of geological faults?

Mr. Biffen: I readily confirm that, and in my judgment the vanity and intransigence of Mr. Scargill are the major factors in the present situation.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Leader of the House recall that he has a duty to the House and come clean on one matter? Will he confirm that the Government issued an instruction to Mr. Reid, the chairman of the Railways Board, not to approach the Attorney-General's office, and, if so, for what purpose did they want Mr. Reid not to get the Attorney-General involved?

Mr. Biffen: I have already commented upon that, and
I cannot add to it.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 7 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, despite the protestations in support of agriculture from members of the alliance party, they, along with members of the Labour party, voted in Committee on the Rates Bill in support of the rating of agricultural land? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would my right hon. Friend like to take the opportunity now of stating unequivocally that this party and this Government will not take such a course?

Mr. Biffen: I am glad to give that confirmation to my hon. Friend. There is no question of this Government rating agricultural land, and our commitment to farming remains as firm as ever.

Mr. Foulkes: Under what authority has the Home Secretary authorised the tapping of the telephones of Mr. Peter Heathfield and Mr. Arthur Scargill?

Mr. Biffen: As I am unaware that that has taken place, it would not be appropriate for me to answer.

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howells: Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Prime Minister to introduce the milk quota order before the Euro-elections next week, so that dairy producers in this country may know whether they will be adequately compensated for loss of business?

Mr. Biffen: The early and full exposition of the plans of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would, I am sure, be of immense electoral advantage — [Interruption]—I shall, therefore, bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman is requesting; but there may be some technical difficulties.

Mr. Stanbrook: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Prime Minister has seen a reported statement by the chairman of a committee of the Greater London council to the effect that the Crystal Palace sports centre would be deprived of its grant if a certain athlete did not make a statement of political policy agreeable to the GLC? Is that not fascist in any sense of the word——

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Withdraw.

Mr. Stanbrook: —and contemptible by any standard?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may find that the original remarks gave rise to expectations of policies that will not now be pursued, and I believe that there will be general happiness in the House that that is so.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House comment on a lottery organised by police officers in which officers involved in policing the mining dispute contributed £1 to a kitty, to be awarded to the policeman who arrested Arthur Scargill? [Interruption.] That is perfectly true. Did Inspector Nesbitt, who arrested Mr. Scargill on a trumped-up charge, benefit financially from that dubious act?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on to dignify our proceedings. He asked a number of questions to which, clearly, I am totally unable to reply. Indeed, I sidestep his questions cheerfully because they are all part of a policy of disparaging the police force at a time when the police need all our support and help.

Mr. Nicholls: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in its understandable desire to achieve a settlement of the mining dispute, the NCB should not lose sight of the fact that the stand that it took in the first place was correct? Does he accept that any settlement which ignored that fact would mean that the battle which we are now having to


fight would have to be fought next year and in the years to come? Does he agree that this is an issue which must be settled once and for all and which cannot be fudged?

Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that in this House and outside there are those who can see no satisfactory end to this contest other than in beer and sandwiches and the white flag—[interruption.]—borne not so much out of love for the mining industry as of a detestation of this Government.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at an early stage in the dispute I asked him whether he would give an assurance that the armed forces had not been put on alert? Has he seen the letter from the Prime Minister to me in which she admits that the facilities of the armed forces have been put at the disposal of the police? Will he say whether he or the Prime Minister were misleading hon. Members in the matter?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hirst: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in this morning's papers that the Bolsover colliery, which is still working, has won a contract to replace gas with coal as the principal fuel for an ICI cement works? Is this not precisely the sort of commercial opportunity that Ian MacGregor has been striving to win for the industry? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind prejudiced Labour Members that the best thing that they can do this afternoon is to remind the lobbying miners that it is the customer and not the taxpayer who can give them security of employment?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is right. The future of the industry will be secured by sound economics and not by bad politics.

Business of the House

Mr. Peter Shore: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the coming week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 JUNE — Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 12 JUNE — Second Reading of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc. Bill.
Consideration of Lords Message on the Housing and Building Control Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 13 JUNE — Remaining stages of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords] .
THURSDAY 14 JUNE—There will be a debate on the arts and heritage on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 JUNE — Remaining stages of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc Bill.
Remaining stages of the Food Bill [Lords]of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill [Lords]and proceedings on the Road Traffic Regulation Bill [Lords]which are consolidation measures.
MONDAY 18 JUNE—Debate on a motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, Cmnd. 9227, which will be concluded on Tuesday 19 June.

Mr. Shore: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. In view of the great importance of the debate that is to follow, I shall be brief.
The Leader of the House will know that we regret that it has not been possible to accede to our request for a debate in Government time on the London economic summit. Therefore, there is all the more reason for the Prime Minister to make a full statement on the outcome of what is a most important conference. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us that assurance.
Secondly, I ask the Leader of the House to put it to the Prime Minister that a statement is most urgently required in the light of the disclosures in the press, which have had a most serious effect on the negotiations that are to be resumed tomorrow between the National Coal Board and the NUM. It may be that a separate statement is needed — no doubt this can be discussed with the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General—by the Attorney-General in view of his special constitutional importance and the specific reference to him in the correspondence.
I hope that the Leader of the House will press both matters.

Mr. Biffen: I confirm that there will be a comprehensive statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the economic summit, and it is likely to be made on Tuesday. I realise that there is a widespread interest in this topic and I share the regret that we cannot have the debate, such were the exigencies of time. As to the statement in the Daily Mirror, associated with Mr. Paul Foot, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity for a debate in the House on the aspects of the European Community affecting the growing of raspberries, and the problems that have resulted from the dumping through Holland of eastern European raspberries in this country? There should be an early debate on this important subject.

Mr. Biffen: Heroically, I shall resist all temptation to indulge in schoolchild humour. I know that this subject is a real problem in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I shall convey his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Ms. Jo Richardson: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the privatisation of the National Health Service, which is growing rapidly? Will he note that 92 women who work in the domestic service at Barking hospital have been on strike for 13 weeks because their private contractor has cut their wages by 40 per cent.? The hospital is becoming dirty, unhealthy and unhygienic. That is what privatisation does for the NHS.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Lady, who is a fair controversialist, will recognise that recently the House had a day's debate on the National Health Service. Therefore, I cannot offer an early prospect of a debate in Government time on the subject. I wish her success in any quest she may make to have the specific constituency point raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Following yesterday's celebrations of the 40th anniversary of D-Day, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on disarmament and foreign affairs? Should we not remember that the nations of western Europe were liberated by the allied armies, and the nations of eastern Europe, including Poland and Czechoslovakia, for whose freedom we went to war, were conquered by the Red Army and remain in bondage?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly raise that point with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, I must say at once that there is no immediate likelihood of a general debate on foreign affairs.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: As the Daily Mirror revelations clearly show that the Government have an incomes policy, although it is not explicitly stated or debated in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early opportunity to debate the reports of the review bodies on nurses' and midwives' pay and the others apparently being published today, together with the whole of the Government's incomes policy, so that we may have the policy in the open and agreed properly?

Mr. Biffen: I must repudiate at once the premise on which that question was based. Of course, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the relevant members of the Government.

Mr. Timothy Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend not be too hasty in resisting the Opposition's request for a debate on the Prime Minister's recent correspondence on public sector pay? Would not such a debate provide an outstandingly good opportunity to show that the Government are exercising the proper level of concern for public sector pay settlements, but falling well short of excessive interference?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My dilemma is that, while my hon. Friends can adduce the most formidable arguments, alas, I have to provide the time.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that an oral statement will be made in the House next week about nurses' pay and related matters?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of the relevant Ministers to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of millions of our fellow citizens, who are confused by the fact that one man can raise a private army in excess of 6,000 people that can set about to prevent people from going about their lawful duty in such a way that scores of people are arrested and injured, but that that person is not subject to criminal action? Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that we should review the law in such a way that that person is arrested and put behind bars?

Mr. Biffen: The best thing that I can do is to advise my hon. Friend to try his luck in trying to participate in the debate this afternoon.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some guidance on parliamentary language? Does he recollect that he moved a resolution suspending me for five days for using an unparliamentary word? What is the safe and polite term that we should use for a lady who said one thing about the miners' dispute but, as has been revealed in the Daily Mirror, acted very differently? How should we describe that in parliamentary language?

Mr. Biffen: I have always understood that you, Mr. Speaker, were the guardian of what constituted appropriate and orderly parliamentary language and that you had no wish to share that responsibility with anyone else; and I must say that I have no wish to share it with you.

Mr. Richard Holt: The Leader of the House will recall that for many months I have been requesting a statement on nuclear waste dumping at Billingham. Since the unfortunate accident at Abbeystead, which no one could have foreseen, the fears of people in the Billingham and Cleveland area have grown. Will he now expedite a debate on the subject?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind. As it is very much a constituency matter—and no less serious for that—I hope that he will also try to use that time of the House which is not necessarily allocated to the Government to obtain a debate on the matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very important debate today on an Opposition motion. No fewer than 29 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and Ladies have expressed the wish to take part. I propose to allow questions to continue for a further five minutes. If questions are short, it may be possible to accommodate most hon. Members.

Mr. Denis Howell: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to study and discuss with the Prime Minister early-day Motion 790 in my name?
[That this House notes with concern the statement made to the Sports Council by its Chairman on 12th December 1983, to the effect that he had required the resignation of the Director of the Sports Council because the Minister for Sport believed that the Director was in close association with the then Opposition Spokesman on Sport; recalls that the Minister for Sport has answered questions in the House declaring that he had no involvement in the resignation of the Director and notes that this statement has been directly confirmed to the Right honourable Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, by the Minister; further takes note of the statements made by the Minister to the Right honourable Member containing the information that the Chairman of the Sports Council intends to make a suitable apology and withdrawal at a forthcoming meeting of the Sports Council and learns with regret that the said Chairman has now declared that he has nothing to apologise about or to withdraw; and in these circumstances calls upon the Prime Minister to inquire into these direct conflicts between the Minister for Sport and the Chairman of a body directly responsible to that Minister, and also into the ramifications of this situation so far as Parliamentary accountability is concerned, as well as having regard to the rights of a distinguished public servant to protect his reputation and integrity.]
If he has not already done so, will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the extraordinary situation in which the chairman of the Sports Council required the resignation of the director, saying that this was at the behest of the Minister with responsibility for sport, on the ground that the director had too close links with the Opposition. As the Sports Council receives all its money from the House that suggestion was grossly improper, but, as the Minister has denied it, the chairman and the Minister are now in conflict with each other, and questions arise about parliamentary accountability and the answers given by the Minister. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to inquire into the matter?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to refer the points to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As he has made that request, I shall certainly carry it out.

Mr. Roland Boyes: At a time when liberty and freedom in Europe are being mentioned a great deal, is the Leader of the House aware that three coaches carrying miners were stopped outside Hanley, the drivers threatened with arrest if they went any further and the passengers turfed off seven miles from their destination? Does he agree that the House deserves a. statement on the erosion of freedom and liberty in Britain?

Mr. Biffen: Wishing to keep the temperature as low as possible, I think that the most helpful comment that I can make is to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should seek the opportunity to make his point in more expanded form in this afternoon's debate.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall any previous occasion when a Prime Minister, presumably fit and well and in London, has not appeared to answer questions on a Tuesday or Thursday? Although the occasion that has led to the absence of the Prime Minister may be unique, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to her our anxiety that he should not have to substitute for her too often?

Mr. Biffen: I cheerfully accept that analysis. I am here at the call of duty and not out of overweening ambition, so I will certainly pass on that message.

Mr. Peter Pike: In view of the concern of housing authorities throughout the country about the shortage of housing allocations for this year and continued rumours of a moratorium on housing allocations, will the Leader of the House consider arranging for an early statement or debate on that important subject so that the position can be clarified?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May we have an assurance that the various reports on Northern Ireland will be debated before the summer recess? May we also have a debate on the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 6) Order 1984 which controls the sale of chemicals to Iraq and Iran, which I am sure he will agree is an important subject?

Mr. Biffen: I should like to consider the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the first point, although I have not been able to give a date for a debate on Northern Ireland, I hope that one can be arranged in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the fact that the Government have chosen to hold a debate on the arts and heritage on the day of the European elections a measure of how slightly they regard the importance of the arts and heritage to our national life?

Mr. Biffen: For an awful moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman's question would be the other way round. What the timing reflects is the difficulty of composing a timetable acceptable to all.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Could the Leader of the House make time for a debate on British Rail Engineering? British Rail is proposing massive redundancies which, if they were to take place in my area, woukld kill off communities such as Springburn and many other workshop areas.

Mr. Biffen: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I realise the important constituency connotation that the matter has for him. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. John Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen that the International Labour Organisation, following its condemnation of the Government for their handling of GCHQ, has now condemned them for cutting the number of wages inspectors to the point at which a minimum wage policy

can scarcely be carried out? Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available in the immediate future for a debate on that vitally important subject?

Mr. Biffen: The subject is indeed very important, and the hon. Gentleman does the House a service by raising it. I cannot guarantee a debate, but I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Employment to the points that have been made.

Mr. John Fraser: The Housing and Building Control Bill is to be considered next Tuesday. Will the Government now accept their defeats in the House of Lords, and keep accommodation for 200,000 elderly persons available for letting?

Mr. Biffen: I do not wish to ruin the hon. Gentleman's sense of expectation. We must wait and see what happens on Tuesday.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that today and yesterday, on Derby day and Coronation cup day, fewer than 200 Tory Members have been present in the House — fewer than 200 out of nearly 800 Members of Parliament? [Interruption.] Yes, two days together. That number is roughly equivalent to the number of miners who have gone to Bolsover pit to work, without producing any coal.

Mr. Biffen: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels rather unwell about Bolsover pit, but there must be a better case than that to be made and I wish him luck in today's debate.

Mr. Robert Litherland: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 573 in my name?
[That this House sympathises with the plight of the loyal workforce of Phillips Rubber Co., Dantzig Street, Manchester, and supports their efforts to obtain a decent living wage; recognises that £48 for a basic wage for a 40-hour week is an insult to workers who have devoted their working lives to this company; condemns the board and management for its intransigent Victorian and brutal attitude towards the 100 workers now in dispute for the past three months; and urges the management to resolve the situation by accepting the procedure of mediation.]
The motion is about the dispute between Phillips Rubber Co. in Manchester and its work force. The dispute has been going on since last November. This is a classic case of low wages. The workers receive £48 for a 40-hour week. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that all aspects of low pay were debated?

Mr. Biffen: In all candour, I cannot offer the prospect of Government time for such a debate. The hon. Gentleman may try to use an Adjournment debate to bring this constituency matter to the attention of the House.

Question to the Prime Minister

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that you were unable to accept the question that I tabled for the Prime Minister on Thursday 21 June. I sought to ask the Prime Minister whether she would take steps to acquire a copy of the book by Mr. Bruce Arnold entitled "Margaret Thatcher. A Study in Power" for the library of No. 10 Downing Street. I understand that you refused to accept the question from myself and 25 other hon. Members under paragraph 54(17)of the Manual of Procedure, which states:
Questions which raise matters of policy too large to be dealt with in the answer to a question, which are multiplied with slight variations on the same point, or which are trivial, vague or meaningless, may not be asked
The question refers to the Belgrano. You will know, Mr.Speaker, that the Prime Minister has shown extreme reluctance to answer any questions in the House on that matter or on the Oman scandal, and that in the past couple of days she has done a bunk over the Daily Mirror disclosures. If you find one question tabled by 26 hon. Members unacceptable — remembering that it is extremely difficult for any question that is not in the first six to be answered and that therefore hon. Members always have the incentive to table more than one question in the hope of one being answered—I should be grateful if you would say what number of questions on one subject you would find acceptable. That would be helpful to all right hon. and hon. Members.
I am sorry to delay the House on this matter, but I and many other right hon. and hon. Members regard the circumstances of the sinking of the Belgrano as extremely important. We are deeply worried that for many months the Prime Minister, on this as on many other issues, has treated the House with utter contempt and refused to answer questions. This is our only opportunity to ask questions, and I should appreciate your guidance about your future actions in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: The authority under which I disallowed those questions was that, in my judgment, they constituted "a campaign". I considered it to be grossly unfair to other right hon. and hon. Members who wanted to table questions to the Prime Minister. It seemed unacceptable to me to have 26 questions on the same subject.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the fact that Hamish Hamilton Ltd., the publisher of the book, has reputable ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into the merits of the situation.
Later——

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that an important debate is to follow.

Mr. Lamond: I want to ask for guidance on your earlier ruling Mr. Speaker, that the 26 similar questions were out of order because they appeared to be a campaign.

First, I was not one of the 26 who tabled any of those questions. However, I have noticed that 57 out of 60 questions to the Prime Minister today are exactly the same. Why were they not ruled out of order as a campaign?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman fully understands the situation. The 26 questions which were submitted were substantive questions on exactly the same. matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate to follow.

Jubilee Gardens, London SE1 (Meeting)

Mr. David Ashby: On a. point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises out of a meeting that is taking place within one mile of the House of Commons. The matter is dealt with on page 224 of "Erskine May", which says:
not more than fifty persons shall meet together within the distance of one mile from the gate of Westminster Hall … to consider or prepare a petition or other address to both Houses, or either House of Parliament, on any day on which those Houses, shall meet and sit.
In Jubilee gardens, which is within one mile of this building, there has been a meeting that has been addressed by someone called Mr. Arthur Scargill. I submit that the meeting is intended to intimidate the House and incite some of its Members. As that gentleman could be in control until 2004, this is an important matter. I ask for your ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker, because such meetings are most unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his point of order. He will observe that the Acts of Parliament to which he referred are closely tied to the purpose of presenting a petition or address to Parliament. I am not aware that that is the objective of the persons at present assembled in Jubilee gardens. Furthermore, enforcement of the law is a matter for the police, not me. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police acts under directions given by the two Houses at the commencement of each Session to keep free and open the streets leading to the Houses of Parliament to ensure the access of Members of Parliament to them. As far as I am aware, that is happening today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that, at the end of your statement, you referred to the free access of hon. Members to Parliament because one of our number, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), was making his way to the House a little over one and a half hours ago in accordance with what you have just said when he was obstructed by one of the Prime Minister's private army—the police—and arrested. In view of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, I think that you have a duty to make inquiries into that matter to see under what pretext my hon. Friend was arrested while coming here to represent his constituents.

Mr. Speaker: I shall of course look into that matter.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter which arises from Question Time. In reply to a question, the Leader of the House implied that 20,000 miners who had been made redundant could find jobs in——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to do what all hon. Members would agree should not happen and that is to have elucidated an answer given during Question Time.

Mr. Boyes: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is. He must make a point of order to me.

Mr. Boyes: I think that it will be a point of order. I have a letter in my possession from the director of the NCB in the north-east. When a pit was under threat in my constituency——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot possibly answer that sort of question. It should be put to the Minister. If the hon. Gentleman felt that he had an inadequate reply, he has other remedies.

Opposition Day

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Speaker: Before we start the important debate on the mining dispute and the Government's policy on the "Plan for Coal", may I remind the House that no fewer than 29 right hon. and hon. Ladies and Gentlemen have applied to speak. I have no power to control the length of speeches, but if hon. Members, particularly right hon. Members, limit their speeches to about 10 minutes, most hon. Members who wish to speak can be called.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move,
That this House strongly condemns the Government for its mishandling of the coalmining dispute and the way in which severe hardship has been inflicted on miners, mining families and communities and for its abandonment of the principles and objectives of the "Plan for Coal"; calls for the withdrawal of the plan to lose 20,000 jobs and close over 20 pits in the corning year, which was a unilateral decision of the National Coal Board; and believes that the Government should then call a tripartite meeting to project the "Plan for Coal" forward based on investment and an expansion of the coalmining industry which will be essential for Britain' s needs.
After 13 weeks of a major dispute in one of our vital industries—incidentally a dispute not about wages but about jobs—we have had confirmed in the past 24 hours that the Government have been seeking not a negotiated settlement based on the "Plan for Coal", but a political victory over the miners. The Tories have been planning an orchestrated attack on the coal mining industry since the 1978 Ridley report. The revelations in the Daily Mirror confirms that the Government have been leading that attack.
I put it to the House and the Secretary of State that the Prime Minister should have found time to come to the House yesterday to answer questions on the letters published in the Daily Mirror yesterday. In her absence, will the Secretary of State confirm that those letters are authentic? The fact that the Prime Minister has set up an inquiry into the leak in effect makes them authentic. Therefore, will the results of the inquiry be published? The House has a right to be informed about that.
We have it on record that on 11 May at the Scottish Tory conference the Prime Minister said:
We are not going to intervene in the coal dispute.
That is obviously an untruth. We demand that the Prime Minister comes to the House and makes a statement at the earliest opportunity.
I have referred previously to the Ridley report and I shall have more to say about it shortly. The present Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), has taken an untoward interest in defeating the miners. In fact, his involvement in the dispute seems to have been greater than that of the Secretary of State for Energy. That is perhaps to be expected because the right hon. Member is one of the masterminds behind the Government's attack on the miners.
I hope that Conservative Members will listen carefully. In a report in 1978 the right hon. Member for Cirencester


and Tewkesbury pinpointed the coal industry as being the most likely battlefield for a future Tory Government. To prepare for this he suggested that a future Tory Government should build up coal stocks, particularly at power stations, make contingency plans for the import of coal, encourage hauliers to recruit non-union drivers, introduce dual coal-oil firing in all power stations, cut off the money supply to strikers and make the union finance them, and establish a large, mobile squad of police to deal with picketing. Every one of those points has been followed by the Government.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Ten out of 10.

Mr. Orme: Yes, it is 10 out of 10. I am glad the hon. and learned Member recognises that.
The dispute has serious consequences for the economy and for many communities in the United Kingdom. That is why I deplore the action of the Government in backing the Ridley report, as has been confirmed by the leak in the Daily Mirror. I find the inactivity of the Secretary of State for Energy during the past 13 weeks unbelievable. After 13 weeks of a major strike he has not yet spoken to both sides. All we have had from him is an unhelpful interview in last Sunday's News of the World.
We made an attempt not to negotiate but to get talks going on a proper basis between the two sides. I invited Mr. Scargill and his colleagues to come to the House to see me, which they readily did. [Interruption.] I see nothing funny in that. The Secretary of State should have done it. Mr. Scargill explained the case of the National Union of Mineworkers. A couple of days later I asked to see Mr. MacGregor, to which he readily agreed. He put the National Coal Board's case. Following those exchanges and recognising the gap that existed between the two sides — I am not underestimating that— I felt that there was a basis for talks, and I said so. Talks have now started. [Interruption.] I shall let the public decide.
Talks are proceeding and I wish them every success. The point is that they are taking place against a threat from the Government because they are trying to implement a victory over the miners, not a negotiated settlement. That is central to the whole issue.
The 1978 blueprint for action by a Tory Government is being carried out to the letter, as confirmed by Conservative Members. The events of 1981 make it clear that since they came to power in 1979 the Government have been preparing to take on the miners. In 1981, as now, it was the Labour party who stood by the commitments in "Plan for Coal". It has repeatedly called on the Government to continue security of employment for mineworkers implicit in that programme for growth. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the 1960s, yes, we closed pits and we made mistakes. We learnt from that. There were jobs for people to go to in those days. The Government have learnt nothing from that period.
In 1981 the National Coal Board, spurred on by the Government's financial targets laid down in the Coal Industry Act 1980, produced a pit closure programme that was not within the agreed specifications of "Plan for Coal" and was unacceptable to those working in the industry. Then, as now, the Government changed their mind. They began by refusing to accept their responsibilities both in terms of their general duties towards a nationalised industry and of their obligations to the tripartite nature of

"Plan for Coal". Then, as now, they stood aside from their duties and obligations. Yet, in 1981 the Government had an attack of realism under pressure and arranged a tripartite meeting with the National Coal Board and the unions. They relaxed their financial targets and the NCB withdrew its closure programme.
The right hon.Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who was then Secretary of State for Energy, was able to reaffirm his Government's commitment to "Plan for Coal" and to
emphasise the Government's view of the vital importance of the coal industry to the country".
However, by the time this dispute began, the Government had set the scene for a long and bitter struggle that they were determined to win, irrespective of the cost to the nation or to the workers in the industry. By then they had been able to adopt the Ridley blueprint and they were ready to take on the unions in the coal industry. By 1984 they had been able to build up coal stocks at power stations and pits.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Orme: They have enabled the CEGB to buy coal and stock it in Rotterdam for importation. They have kept expensive oilburn power stations on stream. During the dispute the CEGB has been able to expand its oil-burning capacity at short notice, despite the additional cost of £20 million per week.

Mr. Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Orme: They have used the social security legislation to ensure that striking miners and their families suffer great hardship if they take industrial action.

Mr. Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Orme: I shall give way when I get to the end of this point.
The fiction of £15 a week strike pay is one of the Government's most vicious moves against working people. Other benefits have been denied in an attempt to starve the miners back to work. but because of the support of their families and communities the financial intimidation has not worked.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Member has said that he is concerned about the members of the industry and their families. If that is so, would he not support the view that those people should have had a chance to vote on whether or not they should have a dispute?

Mr. Orme: That is an internal matter for the National Union of Mineworkers. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all the miners are opposed to the MacGregor proposals. They responded to the overtime ban throughout.
It is clear that the build-up to the events of this year has been planned and orchestrated by the Government. The Coal Industry Act 1984 left us in no doubt that pit closures were on the cards with the reintroduction of short-sighted fiscal measures which again set a break-even target for the National Coal Board. Mr. MacGregor produced his plan for a further round of pit closures to meet those targets. The dispute began because of the high-handed manner in which the chairman of the NCB has planned for the future of the industry. His plans have been presented as a non-negotiable edict. That approach was guaranteed to create dissention and bitterness.
"Plan for Coal" was a tripartite agreement, and three months ago one of the parties, the NCB, unilaterally tore


it up. The future promised to miners at pits such as Cortonwood was flung aside. It was said that Cortonwood had five years of life and miners moved from other areas to live near it. However, it was given five weeks' notice to close. That is what the MacGregor proposals mean.
On 6 March the trade unions were presented with a formal statement by the board which, while invoking the principles set out in "Plan for Coal", in effect tore the plan to shreds. The unions were being presented with a plan for the rapid contraction of the industry and not one based on expansion, agreement and investment. It was then that the NCB admitted that the plan would mean the loss of 20,000 jobs this year and a cut in output to 97·4 million tonnes. Mr. MacGregor said that it would produce a baseline below which production would not need to fall. That statement is reminiscent of statements that he made when chairman of the British Steel Corporation. Unfortunately, the baseline continued to fall while he was in that position. It should have caused no surprise that Mr. MacGregor produced such a plan for the coal industry bearing in mind what happened during the three years when he was chairman of BSC. In 1980, BSC reduced its orders for coal from the NCB by 25 per cent. Meanwhile, Mr. MacGregor increased British Steel's consumption of imported coal from 14 per cent. to 24 per cent. of its total consumption.
The Government have achieved their objective. The demand for coal has shrunk. There has been a fall in electricity consumption of 30 per cent. since 1979. There has been a significant fall in consumption even outside the steel industry. It has taken place in a range of manufacturing enterprises, and at the same time there has been a levelling off of domestic electricity consumption. The consequences for the coal industry and its finances have been catastrophic and, in certain places, disastrous.
The result is there for all to see. Consumption of coal in power stations, which in 1978–79 was 89 million tonnes, fell dramatically to about 80 million tonnes in 1982–83.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose——

Mr. Orme: No, I shall continue for a short while.
The decline in car production has led to a decline in steel producion, which has led directly to a decline in power station and coking coal. This has all been the result of the Government's policy. At the end of the line are miners' jobs and the future of entire communities. The Government have no clear idea of where they are going with energy, as in other areas, beyond their short-term, balance-sheet approach.
What do the Government envisage when there is an increase in energy demand? Shall we have to import more coal when that happens, or use expensive oil to generate electricity and push up the price of electricity even higher? The report of the Select Committee on Energy has confirmed that the price of electricity is too high and that there should be a reduction in price instead of another increase. The Committee is of the view that a price reduction would assist both industry and low-income consumers.

Mr. Marlow: rose——

Mr. Orme: Cuts in the coal industry can only mean higher fuel prices in the long run.

Mr. Marlow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is a very important point. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he would like lower electricity prices. I am sure that we would all like lower electricity prices. The right hon. Gentleman is well informed on this issue and he is no doubt aware that the 20 most expensive pits in the country are producing coal at the cost of £89 a tonne. If the money that is invested in those pits were invested in new capacity, we would be able to get coal for electricity at below £20 a tonne. Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what cost he thinks it is worth mining coal?

Mr. Orme: I shall deal directly with uneconomic pits and the cost of closing pits as well as keeping them open. "Plan for Coal" did not overlook the fact that there might be some short-term difficulties. It provided:
The Government will if necessary provide assistance to counteract the effect of any adverse fluctuations in demand … They will also, if necessary, be prepared to provide assistance in those cases where certain products may be essential in the national interest.
However, the Government are trying to squeeze capacity to meet current consumption. They appear to be planning on the assumption that the world supply of coal will be plentiful forever. Even now Britain is almost entirely dependent on imported coking coal.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: rose——

Mr. Orme: No, I shall not give way.
It seems that the Government believe that it is in the national interest to close pits and to lose thousands of jobs in the mining industry. "Plan for Coal" states:
every experienced and trained man who leaves the industry represents a serious loss".

Mr. Hickmet: rose——

Mr. Orme: No, I shall not give way. The Government are prepared to see over 20,000 serious losses this year alone. Such a programme breaks all the agreements that have been made during the past 10 years. It is designed to leave the coal in the ground and the miners idle above it. It is economic, financial and social folly of the worst sort. We know from our experience of the 1960s that it is economic folly to close pits before they are exhausted. I have already confirmed that that is so. Pits that are now economically viable could prove to be uneconomic tomorrow because of the Government's policy. The policy of the Government and the NCB is not confined to closing pits that have been worked out for it extends to pits which have many years of working life left in them.
"Plan for Coal" is based on investment in an expanding industry. It accepts that pits will close through exhaustion and possibly through exceptional mining difficulties, and no one denies that possibility. The plan states that an average loss of capacity of 3 million tonnes a year is likely through exhaustion, but that was never considered to be a target to strive for; it was an expectation and even a fear. The plan stressed the need for replacement capacity to compensate for exhaustion and to allow the industry to maintain growth. In the 1960s pits were closed when it was believed that our energy future was in oil. That wrong assumption has taught us that we must not close our options, and that means not closing unexhausted pits.
As the war in the Gulf escalates, are the 1960s to be repeated in an age of recession and high unemployment?


A crisis in oil is on the cards. As the stockbrokers Simon and Coates argue, if the Gulf were blocked and even if other OPEC producers made up half the shortfall, about 5 million barrels a day would be lost. Simon and Coates comment:
In 1979–80 a 5 per cent. shortfall in supplies produced a 150 per cent. increase in official prices …This time a 5 million barrel a day shortage would represent almost 15 per cent. of OECD demand, or 10 per cent. of total world demand, and so heavy speculative pressure on the spot oil markets could quickly allow 'hawks' in the OPEC cartel to put upward pressure on official/contract prices.
The Government have miscalculated the cost of their strategy, the mood of the miners and the effect on the economy.
The Prime Minister says that we cannot continue to subsidise miners to produce uneconomic coal, but if pits are closed, taxpayers will pay more, not less. We would have to replace lost capacity with imported coal from, for example, Australia, which might produce a saving for the NCB and CEGB, but the loss in taxes and the costs of unemployment and social security benefits of cutting 20,000 miners' jobs would more than wipe out that saving. In addition, the indirect effect on jobs in mining communities would be twice as great—doubling the cost to the Exchequer. The cost of lump-sum redundancies would be hundreds of million of pounds. Even the costs of the present dispute are so excessive that it would be cheaper to keep the miners in work.
The weekly cost to the Government of the coal dispute is about £70 million. The loss to the coal board, the additional expenses to the CEGB, the lost taxes from the striking miners, the revenue lost to British Rail, and the cost of the massive police operation present the Government with a serious economic crisis. That has already had an effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. In March production fell by 1·5 per cent. because of lost coal production. The position can only get worse as the effects are felt throughout the country. Even the City realises how dangerous the Government's strategy is—resulting in fluctuations on the stock exchange.
A further indicator of the severity of the dispute is seen in the latest balance of payments figures. The figures for April show the worst monthly deficit ever. The balance of trade in oil deteriorated by £400 million because the CEGB burned oil to conserve coal stocks. Last month the Government used our oil not to pay for unemployment, but to fight the miners.
Such facts usually move the Government into action, and they should do. The Government should realise that the cost of pit closures and redundancies will be most severe and long lasting for the individuals and communities involved. Coal mines are not like offices or factories. When they close the entire community closes with them. In Kent, Scotland, south Wales, the north-east, Lancashire and even the midlands the loss of income to miners' families will create ghost towns of their communities.

Mr. Hickmet: rose——

Mr. Orme: Many hon. Members wish to speak and therefore I shall not give way.
The closure of a pit causes unemployment for today's mineworkers and affects future generations. Unemployment is high, so there is little chance of alternative employment for those who are made redundant or for those entering the job market. What opportunities

will there be for young people to gain the necessary skills to become the mineworkers of the future? The policy of the Government and the NCB sentences thousands of miners to long-term unemployment, and their communities to death. That could be prevented if the Government returned to "Plan for Coal" and implemented its policies instead of talking about the level of investment.
Investment is high because expenditure on new coalfields, such as Selby and the Vale of Belvoir, is high. All hon. Members agree that that expenditure is necessary. If we subtract expenditure on new coalfields and major new workings, we find that investment has fallen by 30 per cent. since 1979. That decrease in modernisation and new equipment is the centre of the problem. If there had been investment in what are described as uneconomic pits, they would not be uneconomic.
Government investment in coalmining increases every year, but since 1979–80 all increased investment has been in new pits, which are not yet productive. Other investment has been cut substantially. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report said:
The NCB's capital expenditure on new mine prospects, principally Selby, has increased as a proportion of total capital expenditure from 4% in 1976–77 to almost 21% in 1981–82".
The report also envisages that capital expenditure on major projects at existing mines will decline from approximately 32 per cent. of total capital investment in 1981–82 to 12 per cent. by the end of the decade. Yet "Plan for Coal" specifically states that a main point of new investment is to extend the life of existing pits. The failure to upgrade the productivity of existing pits spells decline and disaster for many coalfields. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they laugh at people who are losing their jobs and at whole communities that are being closed down.

Mr. Hickmet: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Orme: To meet the needs of the future through expansion, investment of a higher order must be made in the great traditional coalfields as well as in new pits. I do not apologise for reiterating that.
In south Wales, where money has been put behind miners, all production records have been broken. Already there are shortages of Welsh coal such as anthracite, coking coal and prime domestic coal. The south Wales coalfield has a market for more than 9 million tonnes. Mr. MacGregor's plan will reduce production in that once great coalfield to less than 7 million tonnes, and then to less than 6 million tonnes.
The concentration of investment in new pits means that miners have been working with aging plant and equipment and have been unable to meet productivity increases targeted in "Plan for Coal". But the plan was based on a different distribution of investment. Where there has been investment in existing pits there have been significant productivity increases. Investment is supposed to be about growth, yet the Government invest millions in industry to cut it to the bone.
The "Plan for Coal" still holds good today. The Government must revert to its principles and its targets. The way forward for the coal industry can be based only on expansion, modernisation and investment. The Government should make positive moves to improve markets for coal and ensure that the industry expands.


They should consider capital reconstruction, seek to prevent the influx of coal from outside the United Kingdom, and plan conversion to coal-fired power stations instead of retaining expensive oil-burn capacity. That would be a long-term saving, which would benefit the coal industry and energy consumers. They should plan and construct new coal-fired stations instead of wanting the pressurised water reactor at Sizewell. They should be wholeheartedly committed to expenditure on new uses for coal, such as gasification and liquefaction. They should proceed rapidly with a programme for combined heat and power. They should introduce a massive extension of the boiler conversion scheme for industry.
Those are part and parcel of achieving wider markets for coal and a secure future for the industry. Investment in the nation's most important natural resource is not a waste of taxpayers' money either today or in the future. The expansion of the coal mining industry can only reap benefits for the entire country and ensure a future for the miners, the industry and for our ability to provide an energy source for the people of Britain for many generations to come.
In February 1981 the Prime Minister told us that it was important to secure a bright future for the coal industry and that the Government would honour "Plan for Coal". What does she say today? The Government have presented the industry not with a vision of growth, development and expansion, but with one of contraction and closure. We call on the Government today to accept their responsibilities as a party to "Plan for Coal", and to move towards a settlement of the dispute along the lines stated in our motion, beginning with the withdrawal of the closure programme. We call on the Government to stop their secret manipulations to score a political victory over the miners and to start acting in the interests of the nation. Britain needs ever tonne of coal and every miner to dig that coal. That is what this debate is about.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`confirms that the future of the coal industry will depend on the industry's success in deploying its assets so as to keep coal competitive with other fuels; welcomes the action of the Government in providing more capital investment for the industry than any previous Government in order to achieve a successful future for the industry, noting that their investment of over £3·9 billion has not only far exceeded investment in the industry by the last Labour Government, but has substantially exceeded the scale of investment envisaged in the "Plan for Coal"; welcomes the steps taken by the National Coal Board and the Government to ensure that, in areas where a reduction in uneconomic capacity is being considered, miners affected will be treated more generously and with greater understanding than in the past, to the benefit of mining communities; notes that the early retirement and voluntary redundancy provisions are more generous than those of any other industry, and have helped create a situation in which the National Coal Board can assure any miner now employed that he will be able to continue working as a miner if he desires to do so; welcomes also the action of the National Coal Board to assist mining communities by creating a new enterprise company; and calls upon all those in the industry to co-operate to achieve the higher productivity essential to keep coal competitive and secure the future prosperity of the industry and its employees.'.

The speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was remarkable for its total departure from a true analysis of the position. He said that it was important for the Government to stick to "Plan for Coal". If one decided to adhere to "Plan for Coal" and tried to bring into the coal industry what was envisaged by that document, as updated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by the previous Member of Parliament for Chesterfield, the only thing one could do would be to slash the investment programme and to close many more pits.
The Government have substantially exceeded the proposals on investment in "Plan for Coal". That was deplored by the right hon. Gentleman because the investment was in new pits, collieries and coal faces. During the past 20 years the work force in the industry has been reduced by 290,000–190,000 of those under 10 years of Labour Government and 100,000 under 10 years of Conservative Government. Labour Governments have a remarkable record of closing pits. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that they learnt their lesson from the 1960s and that when they came to office in 1974 and prepared "Plan for Coal" they decided that in future they would close only those pits that were completely exhausted?

Mr. Orme: Or unworkable.

Mr. Walker: That is the new definition, but it was not the definition used by the then right hon. Member for Chesterfield in the last year of the Labour Government when nine pits were closed, including one pit with two to three years' reserves of coal in it and another pit with 1·5 million tonnes of coal in it.
The first "Plan for Coal" states:
However, like most extractive industries, the NCB 'has to run fast to stay still'. Over the period up to 1985 it appears that a broad average of some 3–4 million tons capacity a year is likely to be lost, mainly through exhaustion of mines and possibly also through exceptional mining difficulties".
Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the NUM, the NCB and the then Department of Energy, under a Labour Secretary of State, calculated that 4 million tonnes of coal production would become completely exhausted during that period? Of course he is not. Unless all the Ministers at the Department of Energy, the NCB and the NUM were completely ignorant about the mining industry, they could not have meant the word "exhausted" to mean exhausted of all coal. They meant pits that were exhausted from the point of view of economic coal production.
If one wants evidence of that, the same document stated later:
But inevitably some pits will have to close as their useful economic reserves of coal are depleted.
Perhaps we should examine the Labour Government's final Green Paper on energy policy, prepared by the then right hon. Member for Chesterfield, in which the Labour Government refused to put a target on coal production. There was no target for coal production in any of the documents produced at the time. They put in its place this conclusion in the Green Paper:
The coal industry has in its own hands the opportunity to shape its long-term future. It has the reserves and the technology to make a major contribution to meeting our long-term energy needs. How much reliance we shall be able to place on coal in future will depend on the industry's success in deploying those assets so as to keep coal competitive with other fuels.


Are Labour Members now suggesting that the way to secure that is to say that no matter how uneconomic it is to produce coal from a pit, provided that there is still coal there, we should continue to produce it?
The right hon. Member for Salford, East tried to glide over the position on capital investment. The Labour party's view is simple. When, during five years, a Labour Government invested £1,472 million in the coal industry, that was building the coal industry to a great future; when during the next five years, the Tory Government invests £3,858 million, that is destroying the coal industry. It is a remarkable way to destroy an industry to have the most fabulous investment programme that that industry has known, and one that far exceeds that in "Plan for Coal". If we had kept to "Plan for Coal" by now we would have invested £6,700 million in the industry. However, as a result of large increases under Conservative Governments, we have already invested £7,600 million in the industry and, as a result of our acceleration of the capital investment programme, the investment that was envisaged by "Plan for Coal" to be completed by 1985 was completed by 1983.
Opposition Members have referred to comparisons with the coal industries of other countries. They should compare the capital investment programme of the Conservative Government with that of other European Governments. Last year Britain invested in the coal industry almost exactly twice the amount invested in the entire coal industry in the rest of the European Community and 2·5 times more than was invested in Germany. As for Socialist France——

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Ugh.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman may well say, "Ugh". We shall all be watching to see the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman follows their example, because we know that, as a leader, he is good at following but never good at leading.
In France, a Socialist Government came in on the policy of increasing coal production by 50 per cent. That same Socialist Government have announced that they will cut coal production by 50 per cent. This Government have delivered to a greater extent than was envisaged by "Plan for Coal". The Government have invested twice as much over the same length of time as the last Labour Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the subject of comparisons, I point out that the other day the Secretary of State said in his statement that the industry is subsidised to the tune of £130 per week per miner. What would happen if, for instance, the miners were subsidised at the same rate as people such as farmers, like the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues? According to the Think Tank report of November 1983, if the miners were in the same position as the farmers, with each farmer receiving £20,000 per year, there would not be a single uneconomic pit in Britain. If miners received the amount of money that the Government are giving to Nissan—that is equivalent to £400,000 per job—they would be living in the lap of luxury. Those are the comparisons.

Mr. Walker: As this is an important day for the hon. Gentleman, I am pleased to say that, since the dispute started, more miners are working at Bolsover than before. Contrary to his earlier remarks, I am glad to say that

yesterday more than 300 miners were working there. I suggest that, if the miners compared the record on investment and pay under the Tories with the record under the Labour Government they would find a big difference.

Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. So far, this has been an orderly debate.

Mr. Walker: Perhaps we have a situation—this is very interesting—in terms of miners' conditions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer, farmer."] Alas, I do not farm. That is just another inaccuracy.

Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made his point. I hope that he will refrain from making any further comments from a sedentary position.

Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely staggering that the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) dare not answer this question: what will happen to the 6,000 miners whose jobs depend on Scunthorpe, if the steelworks there close and 10,000 steel workers are put out of work?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to make speeches which may be made later if they are called. Interruptions only delay the proceedings and make it more difficult for the Chair to call hon. Members.

Mr. Walker: I point out also that the interpretation of the right hon. Member for Salford, East that the dispute was started by the Government or the Coal Board is a totally inaccurate presentation of what took place. The right hon. Gentleman knows what happened because he went along, as he said, and had a discussion with the chairman of the NCB. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the chairman explained to him that he had never laid down any programme of pit closures. He had never refused to have negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers.
It is suggested that the right hon. Gentleman persuaded both sides to have talks. I was delighted to note that, after the right hon. Gentleman had talks with both sides, for the first time in the dispute the National Union of Mineworkers agreed to have talks without preconditions. Previously, the NUM had always laid down the precondition that talks would take place only if the NCB said it would abandon all pit closures. The reality is that those talks have now taken place and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they will be continuing tomorrow. I hope that careful consideration will be given by both sides to the reality of the marketplace and the potential for increasing the production and consumption of coal.
As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) knows, because he was at the meeting, at that first meeting the NCB presented to the NUM a substantial paper about marketing and the future marketing prospects for coal. He will know also that at that time the NUM wanted neither to question nor to discuss that matter. That is an important element in considering the future prosperity of the industry.
I believe that many miners who are working in pits in Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire,


Nottinghamshire and Lancashire are well aware that damage is being done to the industry's prospects by the present industrial action.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I intervene because the right hon. Gentleman mentioned my name in connection with a meeting. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the NCB was about a quarter of an hour late in coming to the meeting? No one could find him in the building. When he was asked about his attitude to the industry, "Plan for Coal" and the 20,000 men in 20 pits, his answer was, "No comment." He practically walked out of the meeting.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, following a demand by the NUM that all proposals to close uneconomic pits should be withdrawn, the NCB chairman replied, "No comment." The hon. Gentleman knows full well also that the chairman of the NCB has not listed any pit closures. He has listed production targets for each area. He has made it clear that those were targets requested by the NUM. He is perfectly prepared to discuss those targets with the NUM.
Throughout the situation, the NCB has been willing to discuss all those points, without preconditions. Until about a week ago, the NUM imposed a precondition that the union would discuss the matter only if all proposals for future pit closures were withdrawn. In fact, that has not been done, and talks have started without preconditions. It is vitally important that the talks succeed.

Mr. Alan Rogers: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Mr. Ian MacGregor's proposal for limiting overall production to certain areas is exactly the same as the quota system applied to farmers? Obviously, the same response would come from miners as would come from farmers, such as the Secretary of State.

Mr. Walker: In its whole history, the coalmining industry has shown targets and budgets on an area basis. This is nothing new for any industry and nothing new for the coalmining industry. The Opposition talk about butter mountains, but the coal mountain, worth £2 billion, which has been built up during this period, has been another way in which we have endeavoured to see that investment in the industry continues.
I shall deal with other measures, of which there was no mention by the right hon. Gentleman. The first is pay. He pushed that aside, and said that it was not an issue, and that the overtime ban and the present dispute were not caused by the pay offer. I am pleased to hear that he now says that pay is not an issue, because the Government decided to see that the finances were available to make a good and reasonable pay offer to the miners. It has been available since last November, and compares rather dramatically with the Labour Government's record towards miners' pay. The previous Labour Government boasted enthusiastically about how they had looked after miners' welfare but for two successive years there was a substantial reduction in miners' pay in cash terms. In 1976, in cash terms, there was a reduction of £13 a week and in 1977 a reduction of £15 a week. If any Tory Government did that, the demand for strike action would be complete.
The Government are described as trying to destroy the coal industry but we have doubled the Labour party's

investment in it. Miners have better wages than they had under a Labour Government and, despite the industry's present difficulties, we are providing the finance to ensure that capital investment and good pay for miners continue. That is a record for which the Government make no apology. They should not be accused of destroying the coal industry.
The other area where there has been a dramatic change and which, again, was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, is the manner in which the Government have provided the finance to see that, when uneconomic pits are closed in the interests of the industry's future, those affected by the closure of such pits will be treated far more generously than they were by the Labour Government.
During the period that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was Secretary of State for Energy there were 17,000 voluntary redundancies. I bet that those 17,000 miners wish that they had available to them what is now available to those affected by uneconomic pit closures. In the last week of the Labour Government, a miner aged 55 who volunteered for early retirement would have received no capital sum, and £46 a week for three years. As a result of the changes that this Government have made he receives a capital payment of £7,800 and £60 a week guaranteed for five years. That is dramatically different from anything provided by the Labour party. Even more dramatic is the fact that if one of those 17,000 was aged under 50–49 for example—he would have received a capital sum of £1,450, whereas he will now receive £33,000.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that during the time about which he is talking many people over 55 were employed in the industry? How many are there now over 55? Where are they? Are they at pits which will close? The miner may take £30,000, but does the Secretary of State accept that a person aged 49 will not draw social security until the £30,000 has gone? Therefore, it is only advance social security.

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, with the early retirement provisions the miner will also draw unemployment benefit. A typical married man will draw £104 a week. As a result of changes that the Government have agreed to finance, as the hon. Gentleman knows—he has considerable experience in the industry — any miner who wishes to continue to be a miner will be able to do so.
It is difficult to defend major, disruptive industrial action doing maximum damage to the industry, when the Government are financing the biggest investment programme in history and a pay offer that everyone agrees is reasonably good, and ensuring that not one miner will be made compulsorily redundant. That is a remarkable background against which to encourage people to strike. It is also a remarkable background against which anyone should support the use of so-called mass picketing of the type that we have seen during the dispute. We were pleased, at long last, having seen on television policemen being kicked as they attempted to rescue miners from the damage and injury done to them by other miners, to hear the Leader of the Opposition condemn such violence. It was long overdue and we hope he will maintain his position as he sees violence continue, unlike his position over a ballot about which he remained silent until he heard that Mr. Scargill was about to change the rules. He


assumed that, as Mr. Scargill was changing the rules, he might be having a ballot and therefore the Leader of the Opposition came out in favour of a ballot. Since then he has been completely silent on the issue.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Secretary of State and I have known each other for some considerable time in the House. If the Government's case is as perfect as he is trying to make out why has he not used his energy to bring the National Coal Board and the miners together in a much more meaningful way?

Mr. Walker: Because if we create the financial conditions in which the Coal Board can continue with by far the biggest capital investment programme envisaged by the country, even bigger than "Plan for Coal", give the coal board the finances to make a decent pay offer, and to ensure that not one miner is made redundant compulsorily, it is reasonable for us to expect that the coal board and the NUM should work out the detail and the manner in which the policy should be pursued. I am glad that, after a total reluctance to do this, the National Union of Mineworkers has at last decided to enter such talks, and obviously I hope that they will succeed.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Surely the test of threatened redundancies and alternative jobs is real, not theoretical? Before the present dispute started, Herrington pit in my area was under threat of closure, and it had been to the final appeal stage. I wrote to the director of the National Coal Board in the north-east, and asked what was going to happen to the men. He wrote to me towards the end of 1983, and said that he would not guarantee every miner under the age of 50 in that pit an alternative job in a long-life pit. I then had a meeting with the industrial relations man from the NCB. He, in front of lodge officials, confirmed that he could not guarantee men alternative jobs. If he could not guarantee jobs for a few hundred men, how are jobs going to be found for 20,000 men?

Mr. Walker: I will tell the hon. Gentleman, very simply. When that letter was written, there may well have been such a position, but, because of the terms of voluntary redundancy for the men aged 50 and over, and for the under-50s, the situation in 1984 is unlike that in 1983, when there may not have been people wanting to take early retirement to make way for people who wanted to continue to work. I am delighted to say, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear, that this Government decided to provide several hundred million pounds to make sure that the fears expressed in that letter would never come to reality. Therefore, we can say to any miner anywhere in the country that, if he wishes to continue to be a miner, he will be able to do so. That is a remarkable change.
The only opportunity for the industry is to take advantage of the good coal reserves that we have, and to develop them in an efficient and effective way. With the coal industries of other countries in western Europe in sharp decline, and, in some cases, virtually disappearing, there is a good opportunity for the industry in future. However, unlike what the Labour party practised when it was in power in the past, the new policy of the Labour party seems to be that, no matter how uneconomic the coal production in a pit, that pit will remain open, and therefore the money will not go into investing in pits for the future

and in existing pits with better equipment and better coal faces to provide better working conditions for miners, greater productivity and much better pay in the mining industry, to give an expanding and not a contracting industry. That is the option that the Opposition reject. This is a fundamental issue in the mining industry.

Mr. Jack Straw: Before the Secretary of State comes to the end of his speech, with this continual fairy tale, would he spare a couple of minutes to deal with one of the central issues in the debate that he has so far ignored, the extent to which the Prime Minister has been involved in manipulating the dispute for her own political ends? He has said nothing so far about this matter, which is deeply embarrassing for the Government. Does he believe that the statement made to the House by the Prime Minister to the effect that she was not interfering in the dispute can stand up in any way against the revelations from No. 10 that she has clearly been orchestrating the dispute from day one?

Mr. Walker: I can understand, particularly knowing the normal attitudes of the hon. Gentleman, that he would far prefer to play around with matters concerning a letter about railway pay than to face the basic issues affecting the coal industry. The Government have intervened. The Government intervened in the dispute to ensure that the capital investment programme continued, that money was available for a decent pay offer, and that not one miner would be made redundant. That is the intervention of this Government, which the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet supported, and which is, I believe, in the basic interests of the future of the mining industry.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Walker: Therefore, we are seeing a situation in which the industry is employing the best capital investment programme of any coal industry in Europe. It has potentially a good future. Opportunities of export and of coal conversion by industries in the country are being destroyed by the industrial action, which is obviously being supported by the Labour party.
I believe that, when the history of this period is written, it will be judged that, in this situation, a Conservative Government had put the resources behind the industry to give it a good future, and irresponsible industrial action had done damage to that future.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Walker: That is why I say that there is nothing in the amendment proposed by the Government with which the Labour party can disagree. It cannot deny that we are investing twice as much as the last Labour Government did, and more than under "Plan for Coal". It cannot deny that we have been generous to all those who have been adversely affected. It cannot deny that the only future for the industry is one involving high productivity and low-cost coal, with expanding markets. That is why I ask the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: One of the purposes of the debate, in my judgment and, I believe, in the judgment of all Opposition Members, is that the debate should be used to try to seek an end to this grave industrial dispute in which the country is now caught. I had hoped that the House might hear a speech from the Secretary of


State to assist in that purpose. I can hardly say that that is the case. He has merely reiterated the figures and the claims that some Conservative Members have made throughout the period of the dispute. He said not a single word to suggest how we should get back to the negotiating table. He said a few kind words to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who has been discharging the responsibilities that the right hon. Gentleman and Ministers should have been seeking to discharge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may laugh, but we want to get back to the negotiating table. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman does.
It is significant, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), that throughout his speech the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the developments of the last few days, which refer directly to the question of how we are to get a negotiation going, and whether the Prime Minister really wants a negotiation.
It is a disgrace that the Prime Minister has not come to the House to make a statement on this subject. She should have done so yesterday. She should have done so today. Eventually, she will have to come. It is no use anybody suggesting that these issues will not affect the future of the industry, the settlement of the dispute, and, indeed, the honour of the Government.
I quote from a newspaper that commented upon the situation this morning. It happens to be a newspaper that has given steadfast support to the Government, but it represents a part of the country that knows something about the coal industry. The Western Mail says:
In this light, the Government was badly advised yesterday to try to deny that it had intervened in any public industry pay negotiations. Its claim that Ministers only kept in touch with heads of these industries to remind them of their overall cash limits is a blatantly inadequate reaction to what has been revealed in the 10 Downing Street document.
It continues:
What is more damaging, the document makes it clear that Mrs. Thatcher's repeated claims that the Government was not taking any direct intervention in the mining dispute can be regarded as true only by stretching the meaning of words beyond breaking point. Her private secretary's reference to the NCB pay offer undoubtedly points to intervention which was certain of its effect. If that is not 'direct intervention,' then the phrase on Mrs. Thatcher's tongue was so commodious as to be meaningless.
In other words, on this important question, both inside the House and outside the House, the Prime Minister has misled the House and the country. On a series of occasions—I shall not weary the House by repeating them, but the House is familiar with them—the right hon. Lady, inside the House and outside the House, has said that there has been no intervention by the Government in the dispute, and that there will be no intervention in the dispute. We now have a clear indication that that is not the case but that the Prime Minister has intervened in the dispute.
I am not surprised that the Secretary of State did not refer to that. Probably he was not consulted on it. Possibly the only Minister who was consulted about that aspect of the right hon. Lady's policy was the Minister of State, Department of Employment — the chairman of the Conservative party — who has entered into the correspondence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Yes, he should have been present for the debate.
Many of us protested at the time of his appointment because we thought it most invidious that a newly appointed and newly salaried chairman of the

Conservative party should be put into the extremely sensitive Department of Employment, which would surely be dealing with these matters, especially, as is now revealed, when that Department, which should have much wider responsibilities, has been dealing with the specific question of intervening to try to stop successful negotiations. That is what it has been doing, when from the beginning it should have intervened to prevent the dispute ever taking place.
I served at the Department of Employment for several years. [Interruption.]I do not know whether Conservative Members think that this is a matter of importance for the nation. We are concerned to get the dispute settled. I do not know whether they are. They are on trial in this debate; we want to see whether that is their aim.
At the Department of Employment we used to follow every potential dispute to see what were the possibilities of a dispute arising and to see, before one arose, whether we could avoid it becoming a dispute. Large numbers of disputes were avoided on that account. We set up ACAS partly to put that system on a wider basis. But never did the Department of Employment surrender its right and duty to look at each major dispute to see how it could be avoided.
This dispute could have been avoided in advance if the Government had been doing their duty instead of playing politics with the coal industry. They could have avoided it by taking seriously what was said by the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers. I have long experience in the House of what they have said on many subjects. I remember many of the arguments when closures were taking place under Labour Administrations before 1970. I opposed those closures because I came from a mining constituency and thought at that time that the NUM was not only looking after its own interests but had a wiser understanding of the interests of the nation at large than did many of the people who were supporting the oil and other industries.
I learnt from that, as did the Labour Government—[Interruption.] The laughter of Conservative Members, who know so little about this subject, will not be welcomed in the country. It will merely confirm what the Prime Minister has revealed in the documents, which is that she is much more concerned with the political battle than with getting a settlement of the dispute. We learnt from what happened over the years. That is why we produced "Plan for Coal" and why that plan is reiterated in our motion.
It is absurd for the Secretary of State — with a rigmarole that we have heard many times in recent weeks — to say that he is faithfully carrying out "Plan for Coal". A part of that plan managed to ease the problems of the industry in the 1970s. The right hon. Gentleman knows something about that because he was partly responsible for the industrial disputes that occurred in the 1970s, when he was a spokesman for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). In those years the Conservatives made a mess of things because they would not listen.
A central part of "Plan for Coal"—perhaps its most important feature—was that all questions affecting the future of the industry, including investment, closure programmes in general and individual closure programmes, should be settled not by diktat, not by decisions by one party, not by the NCB, not by the Government separately and, worst of all, not by some


conspiracy between the Government and the NCB. I see the right hon. Gentleman smirking. He should not smirk. The appointment of MacGregor to the job was part of the conspiracy. Anybody who goes to the steel areas of this country will be aware of what happened there, and for the right hon. Lady to appoint MacGregor to the NCB was a provocation and was part of the way in which the Conservatives abandoned the principles of "Plan for Coal". We must get back to them as speedily as possible—that is why our motion is right—not only to resolve the immediate dispute but to govern the industry in the years ahead. We must get back to discussions without preconceptions and——

Mr. John Townend: Give in.

Mr. Foot: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say, "Give in." It is clear that Conservative Members who make such interruptions when we are discussing such important issues have no comprehension of the strength of feeling in the mining areas of Britain. They have no comprehension of how bitter is the feeling about the way in which the miners have been forced into this dispute. They have no comprehension—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foot: —of how that bitterness will be increased when they read how the Prime Minister has lied to the House — [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The sooner they get back to the negotiating table the better.

Mr. Andy Stewart: It was quieter on the picket lines than it has been in the House for some of the debate. I am grateful for having been called to speak because we are discussing the country's greatest industry. It provides the material for a civilised society's most imperative need, energy. Originally, coal was used to give the human race one of its primary requirements, heat, but in the future, with our vast reserves, it will be used to replace the other carbon fuels which, as we know only too well, are finite.
Last year, when I made my maiden speech on what was then the Coal Industry Bill, I said that it was a great privilege and honour to be the Member for the country's largest mining constituency, Sherwood, with its 10 collieries, two area workshops and two area headquarters employing 60 per cent. of the Nottinghamshire coalfield's 35,000 employees.
Today, I am prouder than proud to be that Member. What politician, even in his most exaggerated dreams, could have predicted then what my constituents have had to endure in the last 13 weeks? They have suffered mass intimidation reminiscent of that meted out to the Jews in Germany in the 1930s. There have been threats and actual violence to innocent people, including children. Such threats could come only from the gutter.
Before families can go to bed, every curtain must be made secure with furniture to give protection from flying glass as a result of bricks being thrown through the windows. If I were to relate all the horrific crimes that have been committed in my constituency, our marathon Sitting of a fortnight ago would seem short; all this misery because they believe in democracy. It is ironic that this debate is being held on the anniversary of the landings which brought to an end the last Bohemian corporal who tried to destroy our freedom.
I speak for the entire work force of the industry in my constituency when I say that we are not interested in arguing about the past, about which party closed the most pits, or even about that disastrous period of inflation in 1977, when Arthur Scargill, in one of his saner moments, said that his men would have been £25 a week better off under the Tories. That was true then and is true today.
It is the future that matters to our miners. "Plan for Coal", the industry's bible, has this Government's complete commitment and more—some£1,400 million. Politicians have never been in the past, and will not be in the future, successful in running any industry. That is for management and that is what we support. Nottinghamshire's successful record did not happen by accident but by co-operation and commitment by everyone. The old attitude of "them and us" is dead. During this dispute, it has taken on a new meaning. "Them" are the political wreckers, and we know only too well who they are—the synthetic sick and the skivers who use the industry as a gravy train. If they never returned to their place of work, production would probably increase.
When I visit the collieries in my constituency, the last item on the agenda is a working lunch with the area director and local management, which includes all the union representatives, at which the investment programme for the future is endorsed. We talk about investing billions of pounds, but it is at the local pit that this is translated into reality, meaning jobs.
We hear that this dispute is about jobs for our children and grandchildren. Are those people saying that in the year 2020 we shall be sending more people down holes in the ground than we are now? What a Luddite vision! Have they not heard of technology, or are they so blinkered that they have not noticed the disappearance of the pit pony? Technological revolution has arrived in the industry, and its secure and prosperous future lies with the young techonocrats being recruited. If every miner's wife had one wish, it would not be for £1 million, nor would it even be wasted on the demise of Arthur Scargill. It would be that her children would never have to go down the pit to earn a living. The coal industry holds the key to that wish, with unlimited reserves mined at a cost that would give industry energy at a price that no competitor could match. This is the hope for 3·5 million unemployed.
Every day we hear of the sunrise industries. The greatest of these is the coal industry. It will be here when the others have gone, and anyone who disputes that is disregarding the scientific evidence. To replace the current oil requirements will require 105 million tonnes of coal, to replace gas will require 75 million tonnes and to replace the many other derivatives from oil, 25 million tonnes. That is the potential for the future. No miner need fear nuclear power. The present opportunities for new markets in this country and abroad are unlimited.
I can give a specific example. Nottingham university makes its own supply of energy and has recently converted three of its four oil boilers to coal at a total cost of £750,000. As the university does not fit into a recognised category, no grant was available. Nevertheless, the cost will be recovered in three years. It has left one oil boiler as insurance, and the cost of the premium is £80,000 a year. If only the university had a guarantee of a continuous supply of coal, it would convert the fourth boiler. There are many such examples all over Britain. To meet this demand, the Nottinghamshire miners are demanding


action through the ballot box, when every Scargill mouthpiece will be voted out of office, and then he who pays the piper will call the tune.
I remember only too well that, during my maiden speech, when I said that I was the first hon. Member for Sherwood, "Not for long" was the snide remark from the Opposition Benches. I have news for them. Some 15,000 Nottinghamshire miners have withdrawn the political levy and more will follow as soon as the forms are available. The salvation of the industry and the union is in the hands of the men themselves, supported by the necessary investment from the Government. Then we shall see our coal produced by men who put their country and their families before anyone's political philosophy.
I feel it my duty to inform the House of what every Nottinghamshire miner repeats as he goes through the lamproom on his way underground. He says, "I am glad I am British, I am glad I am free, but I wish I were a dog and Arthur a tree."

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am the new Member for Cynon Valley and will be the Member for a long time. My constituency was represented loyally and with distinction by loan Evans, who was its Member from 1974 until his untimely death earlier this year. Before that, he sat for the Birmingham division of Yardley from 1964–70. I know that the House would like to pay tribute to his great service to it. He was Front Bench spokesman on European and Community affairs. He held various posts, including PPS to several former Ministers. He served on the Council of Europe and his interest and expertise in foreign affairs is evident throughout his career. He was a director of the International Defence and Aid Fund, vice-president of the Parliamentarians for World Order and chairman of the parliamentary Labour party foreign affairs group. I believe that loan Evans would best like to be remembered for his passionate interest in peace, justice and human rights throughout the world, and as a Member of Parliament who was popular and respected. Wherever I went in my election campaign, the same phrase was used—"He was a good man".
My constituency is still very much a mining constituency. There are three pits in the valley, and miners also travel to work at 12 pits outside the valley. Thousands of jobs depend on coal, directly in the pits and in the Phurnacite smokeless fuel plant. Part of my constituency is bordered by the Brecon Beacons national park, and the spectacular scenery continues along the length of the valley. The great warmth and hospitality of its people was noted even by my Conservative opponent.
However, according to one of the bodies nominated by the Secretary of State for Wales, the Wales tourist board, my constituency does not even exist. In a new tourism report containing a map of the south Wales valleys, the Cynon valley does not even appear. Instead, the whole area, in which 67,000 people live, appears to have been replaced by a large forest. I realise that at one time, before the industrial revolution, a squirrel could jump from tree to tree from the Brecon Beacons to Cardiff. Are we to glean from this omission that the Government intend to continue their savage policy of de-industrialisation? Have

they a secret plan to reclaim the Cynon valley and extend the boundaries of the Brecon Beacons national park? If they have, they must think again.
The area is, of course, crippled by unemployment. Almost 19 per cent., or one in five people in the valley, have no work. The area has lost its special development area status, and even the CBI is protesting about the cuts in regional aid. The by-products of the Prime Minister's Victorian values—despoiled landscape and inadequate housing—abound. Half the houses in the valley were built before 1919, and the number without baths is three times the national average. Half the land of the valley still shows the scars left by the old coal owners.
One devastating health statistic in the valley is the rate of deaths from respiratory disease. In England and Wales as a whole, the rate is 50 per thousand, but in the Cynon valley it is almost 73 per thousand. We need proper compensation for those suffering from emphysema and chronic bronchitis as a result of working in dusty industries. It is a heartbreaking experience—I wish that Conservative Members could share it—to see a miner gasping for breath even while using an oxygen mask. Yet, because he has not been diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis, he does not get a penny in compensation. That is more than wrong, it is cruel and unjust.
Those living in the Cynon valley today are the inheritors of a strong, radical tradition. One former Member of Parliament, Henry Richard, was known throughout the world as the apostle of peace. Keir Hardie, both a pacifist and a Socialist, once represented the same area. Aberdare, the main town in the constituency, was one of the two largest and most influential centres of literary and musical culture in Wales. The output in printing and publishing was prodigious. The brass bands and the choirs that are found throughout the valley today are part of our heritage, as is the Welsh language. It is not surprising that those who have struggled together in adversity are today once again struggling for the future of their communities.
I suppose that there must be some nice, concerned and intelligent Conservative Members, but they have not been obvious this afternoon. The point made by my hon. Friends was valid. Why is it right to subsidise food surpluses but not right to subsidise coal? But then, one quarter of the Tory candidates in the European elections are farmers. How can we expect any reform of the CAP when the leader of the European Tories is no less a person than Sir Henry Plumb?
Thousands of jobs in the Cynon valley depend on coal, either directly in the pits and the phurnacite plants or indirectly in the engineering workshops and factories. Hundreds of small businesses are already feeling the loss of the miners' custom. But the support given to the miners is unstinted and generous. The valley will ensure that the miners will not be starved back to work as they were in 1926—although it must be said that the Government are doing their utmost to do that. Miners and their families are being forced to live off friends, bags of potatoes and the odd £10 from relatives. They are having to cash their insurance policies, raise second mortgages, sell their cars and furniture and live on tick—but the determination to see it through is in no doubt at all.
Miners' wives are not only providing meals for those in need, they are on the picket lines. Those women feel that their communities, lives and families are under attack. The media image of working-class wives whose husbands


are on strike has, in the past, been one of urging them back to work and reviling them for not bringing home the pay packets. But the women today are shoulder to shoulder on the picket lines and there is a powerful new image, supportive and as determined as the men.
The miners are seen as fighting for us all. It is a symbolic fight, a fight against the two Britains — the haves and the have nots. It is a protest on behalf of a lost generation of young men and women who have never been able to find a job in the valleys of South Wales. Mining is still a dirty and dangerous industry, but we have been offered no alternative. We are not prepared to be bought off with the offers of fool's gold from Conservative Members this afternoon. The steel workers already rue the day that they took redundancy pay. The miners will not be in the same position.
We need investment in coal, not cuts and closures. South Wales is the only producer of anthracite in Britain. Britain is short of 1 million tonnes of anthracite a year, yet the NCB is closing anthracite mines in south Wales when it should be expanding them and opening new mines. Port Talbot steelworks is situated next to the largest untapped reserve of prime coking coal in western Europe. While the Government and the NCB aim to cut our coking coal pits and refuse to invest in the new mine at Margam, they import into Port Talbot 1 million tonnes a year of foreign coking coal.
Only south Wales and Durham produce those quality coals, yet they are precisely the two areas most discriminated against in new investment in major capital projects. Last year, while the pits of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire enjoyed new projects under construction to the value of £2·5 billion, South Wales and Durham were scratching along on less than £42 million—less than 2 per cent. of the Yorkshire and Nottingham totals. In other words, despite knowledge of massive proven reserves in untapped coalfields such as Margam, the Government are being guided by the same short-sighted advice that caused them to massacre the coal industry in the early 1960s, leaving the United Kingdom to the tender mercies of the international oil companies and OPEC.
The Government are engaged at this very moment in what amounts to nothing less than industrial sabotage. The country needs coal, and we can provide it. The NUM's case is not a plea for charity. Closing 74 pits and making 74,000 miners redundant — that is Mr. MacGregor's ultimate plan—would cost £45 billion. To keep them open, producing coal, would cost less than half that, with or without new investment. Success for the miners would preserve their jobs, for the benefit of us all. We want the investment, we want recruitment, we want new technology. There will be no compromise in south Wales.

Dr. Michael Clark: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I take great pleasure in congratulating her on her maiden speech. We look forward to hearing many more well argued and presented speeches. I welcome her to the House.
I am pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have decided to call Members of Parliament who do not necessarily represent coal mining areas. I am an Essex Member, but I was born and brought up in Nottinghamshire. I am very proud of my schoolfriends who work in the pits of my native county.
As an Essex Member, I am mindful that in my county 270 people have been arrested during the dispute, mainly at the ports and docks where there has been heavy picketing against imported coal. As a county, we have made a major contribution to the policing of the midlands coalfields. The present dispute thus effects the whole country because the cost of social security payments to support the miners' families is a burden on us all, the loss of equipment in neglected pits is a burden on the taxpayer and the cost of policing the coal mining areas is a burden on ratepayers, whether the policing is carried out by the local force or by forces from other areas. Moreover, communities throughout the country are greatly disturbed at the number of police taken away from their home areas and the possible decline of law and order as a result.
What is the dispute about? It has gone on for 14 weeks, but it is still not clear what it is about. It cannot be about pit closures, which have been going on for more than 10 years. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) admitted today that the Labour Government closed many pits in the 1960s. The dispute cannot be about redundancies, as 17,000 volunteers are prepared to accept the NCB's redundancy scheme. It is becoming increasingly clear that the National Union of Mineworkers and its president, Arthur Scargill, are using the NCB's need to balance demand and output as an excuse for a political strike.
There is a clear imbalance between output from the mines and demand in the country at large. Between 1979 and 1983 coal stocks have doubled from 29 million tonnes to 58 million tonnes. If those stocks are to be reduced, we must either increase demand or reduce output. Demand can be increased in a number of ways. We can try to export more coal. I have just returned from a visit to Israel where I saw a coal-fired power station. When I asked where the coal came from, I was told that it was from Poland and Australia. When I pointed out that this country produced very good coal and would like to sell some to Israel, I was told that its quality was well known but that it was far too expensive. We must reduce the cost of coal so that we can export more.
As Opposition Members have said, we also need to increase the number of coal-fired power stations. We need to spend more on research so that we can get gas and liquid fuels from coal and learn how to exploit fluidised bed combustion. All those developments require coal to be competitive in price and delivery from the coalfields to be reliable and not constantly subject to disruption as at present.
If we cannot increase demand as we would wish, output must be reduced as a short-term measure. We can do that by closing the uneconomic pits and in so doing reduce the average cost of coal. That will eventually stimulate new demand which can then be met by coal from the new pits and coalfields in which massive investment is now being made.
The Opposition contend that if we had stuck to the "Plan for Coal" we should not have the present problem. The 1974 "Plan for 'Coal" was based on three premises—first, an increase in investment; secondly, substantially improved productivity; thirdly, and perhaps most important, a constant rise in energy demand.
The promised investment took place. Between 1974 and 1979 the Labour Government invested £1·4 billion in the coal mining industry—the total envisaged in "Plan for Coal" for the period 1974 to 1984. Between 1979 and


1984, the Conservative Government have invested £3·3 billion and it is intended to invest a further £3 billion in the next four years. The investment promise in "Plan for Coal" has clearly been kept.
The plan was to increase productivity by 4 per cent. per annum, but it has increased by only 4·7 per cent. in the entire 10-year period under review.
The biggest disappointment, however, has been the lack of demand for energy nationally. In 1974, we expected total energy demand in this country to rise to 430 million tonnes coal equivalent, but it has risen to only 310 million tonnes coal equivalent. Just as total demand for energy has fallen, so has demand for coal, which is now 101 million tonnes—about 30 per cent. below the 135 million tonnes that was envisaged. That drop in demand has made it even more imperative to match output to demand. If by reducing output we can also reduce average costs and increase productivity, we can begin to stimulate increased demand for coal.
The present dispute, however, will not achieve that result. Many people wish to burn more coal in power stations and to use it in process and chemical industries, but they are now frightened to do so because confidence in the industry has fallen away. The dispute does nothing to help the industry. It puts at risk the market for coal and steel plants such as those at Llanwern and Ravenscraig. Moreover, even if the strike ends now, 15 pits are threatened with closure due to the danger of spontaneous combustion resulting from lack of maintenance, putting at risk 20,000 jobs and 10 million tonnes of coal capacity. The dispute also puts at risk some of the very communities that the strikers claim to be trying to protect.
The dispute also puts at risk democracy in this country. Massive numbers of union activists are behaving like bully boys in the midlands coalfields. Those activists are acting in that way without any national ballot and ignoring the decisions taken in the coal mining areas of the midlands.
The dispute puts at risk the lives and limbs not only of the police, but of the pickets themselves. As we know, 315 police have been injured as a result of paint stripper and ball bearings being thrown, trip wires across roads and other attempts to maim them. Sadly, too, one picket has been killed and many injured.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman find that so sad?

Dr. Clark: Why should I be less sad to hear that a picket has been hurt than to hear that a policeman has been hurt? I do not want anyone to be hurt. I want the dispute to be stopped.
The dispute also puts at risk the rule of law in this country. It is turning the midlands into an area similar to Northern Ireland in terms of the violence and the number of the police. Let us hope that we can curb the violence before it develops into riot and civil disobedience which is impossible to control. People outside the mining areas are beginning to fear that law and order will break down because 7,000 policemen are permanently drafted into the areas affected by the dispute. Police from 13 forces—7,000 of them—are there every day.
I hope that as a result of the dispute the Government will consider bringing forward legislation to ensure that when unions organise picketing on such a scale they will

be subject to financial penalties, unless the dispute is authorised by a ballot of the members of the union concerned.
I have itemised all the things that are put at risk by the dispute. Two things will not be put at risk: the strategy of the National Coal Board, which will be carried through despite the violence and intimidation in the midlands, and the life of the Government, who will see the dispute through and come out on top in the end.

Mr. Tony Benn: My first task is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on a most remarkable maiden speech. She spoke with great knowledge, passion and feeling, and represents an area where support for the miners is far greater than Conservative Members begin to understand. They will win the vote in the Division Lobbies tonight, but I venture to tell Conservative Members that they will be defeated by the National Union of Mineworkers and by the people who support it, for reasons that I shall give as briefly as I can.
The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) referred to the police. What the hon. Gentleman said encourages me to read a letter that I have received from someone who was present at the Mansfield rally a few weeks ago. The writer says:
I saw two men bedecked in N.U.M. stickers actually pick up a stone each and throw them at the police lines, inciting other miners to do the same, and as in all large rallies there is a hooligan element, some followed suit, as they did so, the first two turned round and announced that they were plain clothed police officers and tried to arrest one of the miners, but he escaped after intervention by other miners, and the officers were assaulted, not only did they deserve it, but it is they who should be charged with inciting a riot, not the miners.
Conservative Members may not have seen what has really been happening. The press reports of what has been happening on the picket lines have completely left out of account the deliberate police provocation of miners. The coverage has been such that people have not realised what has been happening.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has gone. One had to listen to his speech very carefully to understand that he has made three major changes from the policy of the "Plan for Coal". First, the production targets are to be cut from 130 million tonnes next year—rising to 170 million to 200 million tonnes at the end of the century—to less than 100 million tonnes, which is what MacGregor wants. To make a lot of speeches in the House and indulge in point-scoring while failing to tell the House that the Government are planning to cut the production of coal in Britain is totally misleading.
The second thing that Ministers have not yet been honest enought to admit — we may have to rely on another leak — is that they intend to sell off the profitable pits. That is why they are investing in Selby. They want to pour public money into Selby and some of the Nottinghamshire coalfields so that when they have beaten the NUM—as they think that they will, but they will not—they can sell off the pits into which they have poured public money. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." But it is Government policy to sell off the oil, BT, the airways, the railways and the pits. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say, "Rubbish," let him say it to his own Front Bench.
The third point which was not made plain in the Secretary of State's speech—and I am not surprised


about that — was that the whole objective of the Government is to isolate and defeat the NUM. Everyone knows that throughout the time when Labour was in office there was the closest consultation between the NUM, the NCB and the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I were all involved. The present Government have excluded the NUM from any meaningful discussions about the future of the industry.
That is why there was an immediate response at Cortonwood. When the Secretary of State says that there will be no compulsory redundancies, how can anyone believe him? Those who moved to Cortonwood were told that there would be five years' work there. They were then given five weeks' notice of the closure. The miners do not believe a word Ministers say, and they are absolutely right.
I turn to the economic argument. We produce the cheapest deep-mined coal in the world. If subsidies in Britain were the same as those in the Common Market, the NCB would make a profit of £2 billion a year. Agriculture is subsidised up to the hilt. Indeed, the dairy farmers—including all the dairy farmers in the House—are up in arms if their subsidy is temporarily and momentarily eroded by a Government which has poured money into uneconomic land. Candidly, I am in favour of keeping our land in use for food production, just as I am in favour of keeping our pits in use for future energy for the nation.
People talk about cheaper South African coal. What about the wages of the South African miners? Mr. Botha—that friend of Hitler who was invited to Chequers to celebrate, no doubt, the 40th anniversary of D-Day — represents a coal industry which will not allow unions to exist and pays the miners a pittance. Yet we are told that we must be competitive with that industry.

Mr. Marlow: What about Australian coal?

Mr. Benn: When the present Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), was in charge of the industry in 1973, he ordered Australian coal. When we were in power in 1974, the Australian coal arrived. It was so expensive that the Central Electricity Generating Board sold it at a loss to Electricity de France, because it was more expensive than British coal. I remember that very well.
We are told about the necessity to be economic. What about nuclear power? No private financier has ever put a penny into nuclear power. It has been subsidised from the beginning. The reason why a pressurised water reactor is to be built and why the Government, in advance of the Layfield inquiry, have authorised the spending of £200 million is that the Americans want the plutonium for their cruise missile warheads. It has now been admitted in the newspapers, after reports in Congress, that the American Government cannot persuade their own people to build nuclear power stations and are therefore relying on British plutonium to maintain their warheads.
Those are the realities of the economics. The costs of the closures are greater than the costs of investment, and the cost of the strike makes economic nonsense of the Government's case.
The other argument is that the Government's policy is a continuation of Labour policy. Our investment programme under the "Plan for Coal" was for 170 million to 200 million tonnes by the end of the century. The target

is now to be under 100 million tonnes. Every item of policy, including closures, was discussed and agreed by us with the NUM. As Secretary of State for Energy, I offered the NUM executive a veto on all closures in order to be sure that the NUM, the NCB and the Government would be able to agree to produce the coal.
There has been a great deal of hypocrisy about the Government not intervening. They are deeply involved. The police are preventing peaceful picketing. They have set up road blocks, introduced curfews in the villages and provoked on the picket lines. There have been cavalry charges against unarmed pickets. That is a disgrace to the British police, for which the Government are responsible. This afternoon I asked in the House about the use of troops, and the Leader of the House was very evasive. At the beginning of the dispute, I asked the Leader of the House whether the armed forces had been alerted, and he gave a categorical assurance that they had not. Now the Prime Minister has written to me. I had asked her whether the troops were involved. She used a very skilful phrase. She said that there has been no authorisation. She did not say that the troops were not being used, and she admitted that the army and the armed forces are supplying facilities and transport as part of a joint police and military operation. Either the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister was misleading the House.
The magistrates have come in and introduced bail conditions that amount to a sentence — a sort of exclusion zone—for those who have been convicted of nothing. Much has been made of the crudity of they way in which the Government have turned off every source of funds, including social security. to starve the miners back to work. They have "deemed" that the miners have been getting strike pay when in fact they have not. They have cut maternity grants and excluded from strike pay workers who have been only indirectly involved and were never employees of the NCB. One case that came to my attention was of the Government stopping a retired miner benefiting from the redundancy payment scheme because, for a short while, he was on the NCB's books before the strike began. The Government think that by starving the miners, or bribing them with thousands of pounds, the miners will respond.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman and I shall tell him why. If he wanted to make a point, he should have demanded a debate before today.
The miners know that the large sums of money that are given to them are not real money. They are a lump sum payment for future social security benefits as they will not get those benefits until the redundancy pay has been spent. Neither the tightening of the screw through the Department of Health and Social Security nor the attempted bribery through redundancy pay will affect the miners.
The most remarkable thing that has occurred in the coalfields is that the miners are fighting the present policy and will go on doing so and the Government can do nothing whatever to stop them. Young miners know full well that if, at 29 or 30, they take the money that is offered, there will be no work for them, their children or their grandchildren in the areas in which they live. They will not accept it. It is a most vivid example of the non-nuclear defence strategy. When people are fighting for


something in which they believe, they will make many more sacrifices than the policemen waving their £600 a week pay slips at the picket lines to provoke the miners. The women are supporting the miners as has never happened before and many have been arrested.
I believe that the leadership of Arthur Scargill and the NUM executive has been brilliant throughout the dispute. The Secretary of State has returned. He lost his job as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by mishandling the miners and he will lose his job again because he is up against a National Union of Mineworkers that has been warning people for years about what the NCB and the Government want. I heard Arthur Scargill at the Durham miners' gala three or four years ago describing the hit list of pits. Even Joe Gormley, who is now in another place, denounced what he said, but every word that Arthur Scargill said was true. That is why miners support him. They are also getting enormous support——

Mr. Marlow: Why not have a ballot, then?

Mr. Benn: Conservative Members destroyed trade unionism at Cheltenham without a ballot and intend to take away votes in metropolitan counties without a vote. They cannot suddenly pretend that they are in favour of a ballot in a national dispute. Eighty-seven per cent. of the miners are on strike and will remain on strike until the dispute ends. The financial and other support, such as food, that is being given to the miners and mining areas is on a scale of which there is no parallel in any industrial dispute in living memory. The money and the food are pouring in.
I have attended 10 or 20 meetings on the European elections and every one of them has concerned the miners. No one should think that when 14 June comes it will not be the miners who are in people's minds when they vote Labour against the Government and all that they stand for. I believe that the miners are getting such support because they are fighting for all of us. They are fighting to preserve local government, for public services and for the women at Greenham common in such a way as to attract the support of the overwhelming majority of the Labour movement.
The Government were wrong in 1926. They were wrong again in 1972 and capitulated. They were wrong in 1974 and were defeated. This miners' strike will send the Secretary of State into his final retirement because they are fighting for the country's future and its energy supplies, which are now threatened once again by the Gulf war and are not to be entrusted to the private oil companies. When the House divides, I do not doubt that it will carry the Government's amendment. However, the Government will not carry the support of the British people who are overwhelmingly behind the NUM in its struggle.

Mr. William Cash: It is with a sense of awe of this great Parliament and its history that I make my maiden speech in this debate. I shall try, as far as possible, to be non-controversial. I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her excellent maiden speech.
It had not been my original intention first to address the House until some time after my election, but the subject matter of the motion and the issues that it raises played a considerable part in my by-election campaign and I have

a significant number of constituents who are miners with mining families in mining communities. There are many others in the constituency of Stafford who are directly or indirectly affected by the motion. I spent much of my childhood in the years immediately after 1948 in a mining community near Sheffield and I saw at close quarters how they had to live.
Another compelling reason why I wish to speak now is to pay, in the House, a deeply felt personal tribute to my predecessor, Sir Hugh Fraser. He was a gallant and greatly respected Member of the House who was many times a Minister. He was greatly loved in the constituency of Stafford, which he represented with such distinction for 39 years. It is a great privilege to follow him in representing the constituency.
It was only yesterday that we commemorated the 40th anniversary of D-day. My father was killed in action outside Caen. For my part, it was the freedom which Sir Hugh and my father fought for in Normandy and after Arnhem at Pegasus, with many people from all walks of life, including the mining community, that underpins what we are debating today. It was not simply an abstract ideal of freedom for which they fought but the reality of freedom for ordinary men and women of the country and for the constituency of Stafford. I shall return to that point later.
My constituency comprises the town of Stafford and countryside largely towards the Shropshire border to the west and the Cheshire border to the north. Since 1983 and the boundary reviews, the constituency has included three wards of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which were substituted for the area of Stone. The town of Stafford, though tracing its origins to Roman times and earlier, is first readily identifiable as being settled in 913 during the wars against the Danes, when it became the county town. Ever since then it has held that position as the administrative and trading centre of the county.
In the 18th century it developed an important footwear industry which led to the modern inter-related industries of machinery, grindstones and adhesives, now represented by the famous companies of Dormans, Universal Grinding, Evode and Lotus Shoes. It has excellent communications; the railway first came to Stafford in 1837.
In 1900 Siemens became established in the town. In 1919 that company was acquired by English Electric, which merged with GEC in 1968. That company now employs about a quarter of the entire work force of Stafford. In 1926 British Reinforced Concrete moved into Stafford and Taylor Woodrow has a significant presence in the constituency. The country areas, with their beautiful hamlets and villages, provide a substantial agricultural industry, much of it in the dairy sector. It is a well balanced constituency of town and country, rich in heritage and medieval churches, with many new industries already deeply involved in the newly developing and fast expanding technologies such as computers.
In the public sector we have a new district hospital, officially opened only a few days ago by her royal highness the Duchess of Kent. We have the county police headquarters and the county and borough civic offices. We also have one of the largest maintenance store units for the RAF. A unique feature of the borough of Stafford is that James I was so impressed by the magnificence of its mace that he granted the burgesses special dispensation to carry it vertically.
Stafford first returned a Member of Parliament in 1258. Among my predecessors was Richard Sheridan, who represented Stafford for 26 years from 1780. Those were times of great international tension, revolution, great change, reform and extra-parliamentary agitation. It was at that time that the beginnings of real democracy in this country began to emerge, which culminated in the great Reform Bills of 1832 and 1867 and later, through which my great-grandfather's cousin, John Bright, with his friend Disraeli, brought the vote, and with it democracy, to the ordinary men and women of Britain.
Following Sheridan's maiden speech he asked the opinion of the parliamentary reporter, Woodfall, who replied, "Oratory is not in your line. You had better cleave to your literary pursuits." Disappointed Sheridan replied,
It is in me, however, Woodfall, and by Heaven I will have it out",
and that he did. I have much to learn both from him and from all those in the House. I can only promise that I shall do my best to follow the traditions, customs and conventions and to defend and protect the interests of the constituents of Stafford whom I have the honour to represent.
I said earlier that I would seek not to be controversial. I appreciate that that may be difficult in a debate on this subject. I only hope that what I am about to say about the mining dispute will be construed as being no more than an attempt to present a reasonable sense of perspective in the context of those freedoms to which I referred earlier and for which so many have fought and died. The main point that I wish to make is that we must uphold the freedom of people who choose to work and there must be no intimidation of those who make that choice.
The mining dispute is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for the miners themselves, for their families, their communities and the country. Miner has been set against miner. Violence has been substituted for democracy within the union and has disturbed the peace and good order of Britain. I have always believed, and said so in my campaign, that a national ballot should have been called. Then, at least, there would have been an opportunity for the consent of the miners to be properly sought one way or the other. In the midlands area of the NUM, which includes Staffordshire and my constituents, 73 per cent. of the miners there voted against a strike. I cannot believe that it is fair or right for their consent and their right to work to be subordinated to the wishes of the militants, or that those who wish to work should be intimidated from trying to do so.
While I was out canvassing in the by-election I had direct first-hand evidence of intimidation. I heard it from miners' wives and from miners themselves. Consent is the true foundation of our freedom and of our liberties. It is the essence of democracy in a union no less than in our Parliament. It is my duty and that of Parliament to uphold the right to that consent.
The denial of that consent is not the decision of the Government. The challenge which that denial represents is a threat to democracy. Nothing is more dangerous in a free society than the use of freedom in order to destroy it. The object of the law is to protect the reasonable use of freedom for all citizens and that object must be upheld. That law includes the right to belong to a union, the right to picket peacefully and the right to work.
I am reminded of the struggle for freedom in Poland—a country where the freedoms which we enjoy do not

exist. Lech Walesa is engaged in a completely different struggle from that of the miners' leaders here. He has been fighting for freedom for his workers without the freedom to do so. I ask most earnestly that the miners' leaders remember what he said of his union colleagues—"Our greatest danger is ourselves. We must learn restraint and patience or we will tear ourselves apart." While miner is set against miner, severe hardship is being inflicted on miners, on mining families and on communities, but not by the Government. We seek a prosperous, secure and expanding mining industry. That is our plan and our hope in the future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In following the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), it falls to me to pay him a compliment. When he was not referring to the more controversial elements—the mining dispute and so on—I compliment him on his humour. I am one of those who believe that that is worth a guinea a box, and if the hon. Gentleman develops it, it will hold him in good stead.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman to some extent about his predecessor, Sir Hugh Fraser. When he stood for the leadership of the Tory party against the Prime Minister way back in 1976 after the other bloke made a mess of it, I was not altogether sure who he was. He came in from the outside. I was told that he was an anti-Marketeer and I thought that that was a bit of a start. So I did what little I could to encourage him. I did not dare to do that overtly because it would not have helped. I called him Mr. Quality Street because I thought that he might go down well in the Tory ranks.
Having dealt with that, let me get on with the more important aspect of the debate—the dispute. Nearly all the Labour Members who are in the Chamber today, and many who are not, have been calling for the debate for several weeks. But there was another fellow who was constantly calling for this debate. Not a week passed without a little bloke at the back of me shouting, "What about a coal debate, Mr. Speaker?" Where is he today? I refer to the leader of the Social Democratic party. He has been clamouring for a coal debate now for about two months and when we get it he goes missing. Where has he gone? I was told that he has gone to Portsmouth. I made some inquiries and asked what he was doing down there. I was told that he was either supporting the Social Democratic candidate or the Liberal candidate there. They have one of each. The media have not told us about that. It is very encouraging. There are two candidates. Sally Thomas is making a great show of things down there.
I want to restore the balance on intimidation. Only yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) came along with the information that two police agents provocateurs had gone to the community kitchen where food was being provided for the striking miners, the wives and all the rest. Who has been taking the food? Two coppers. They have been stealing. At Creswell in my area a lady, a pensioner, Mavis Seals, was out collecting one Friday night. She is in a wheelchair, having been on sticks since she was a young girl. She went out collecting for the miners who are on strike and when she came back her front door had been smashed in. The television cameras and the media do not care tuppence about Mavis Seal's smashed door. There are plenty of examples like that.
The same is true down in Kent today where Malcolm Pitt, a miners' leader, has been released after many days


in prison. Part of the Prime Minister's gestapo, the police, are down there filming all the pickets who have gone to try to pay a compliment to Malcolm Pitt on his release.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Before my hon. Friend leaves that subject, will he tell the House about the Friday when we had the freedom ride in my constituency and I, as the local Member of Parliament, was detained for 40 minutes and not allowed to travel in my own constituency? I was not arrested but detained by the police until I threatened to go to the Speaker of the House about breach of privilege and then they released me.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right. When I met him that night he had been stopped by the police at countless places in his constituency. We can all recall such instances.
In Stoke only the other day the buses that had brought down the Durham miners to picket were not allowed to stay. They were sent away and several score of Durham miners were left without transport 150 miles from home. That is the sort of carry-on that is taking place.
The Minister talked about investment. I wish he would tell the House the whole story about the National Coal Board accounts. According to the last figures that we got officially, out of the so-called subsidy to the NCB and to the miners, which is much less than is going to the farming fraternity, £366 million has to go on interest payments. The Minster calls that part of the subsidy to the coal board. There is £200 million for stocking charges. This is all part of the so-called subsidy.
When the Prime Minister has been bragging in the past about investment she has never said that in 1979 6,300 young men entered the mining industry. What are the figures now? As a result of all the glorious investment that the Prime Minister has talked about, there are fewer than 1,800 jobs for young men in the pits. Where is the investment going? As my hon. Friends have said, it is going on interest payments. They are like an albatross around the coal board's neck. The board has to get £2 million at evey pit in Britain before it starts making a profit. The first £2 million goes on interest charges. I have been told that, in the latest set of accounts, well over £400 million goes on interest charges before they turn a cobble of coal. I shall not speak on the subsidy because I have dealt with that before.
I want to turn to the Government's plans. The Secretary of State got a bit excited and was trembling and shouting. Among all the verbiage, I spotted something, as one or two other hon. Members did. He said three times that the coal board and the NUM are not engaged in talks with preconditions. He emphasised it once; he emphasised it twice. What he is really saying to the board, as we all know because we are on the victory trail, is that it can start afresh tomorrow. The miners that my hon. Friends and I have been marching with today know the result. That is why the Government panicked over the DHSS guidelines. Can hon. Members imagine a football manager, whose team is winning two-nil with five minutes to play, telling his players to kick the full backs' legs off and get sent off? That is what the guidelines mean. The Government have panicked. When they start taking bread out of the mouths of miners' kids, what does it mean?
Why have the Government panicked? It is partly because of the Gulf war. We have nowt to do with it.

Arthur Scargill has not been on the phone. I have not been on the phone. My hon. Friends have not been on the phone. They started it on their own on those Benches. I have started to listen to the world service to hear what is happening in the Gulf.
In 1926 when the miners went back to work they found that their shovels, hammers and picks had rotted and rusted. In 1972 my dad said to me, "It is a different story now. It is their tackle that is down the pit. It does not belong to us. It belongs to them. It belongs to the coal board and the insurance companies will have to pay up." All the stuff that is down the pits is deteriorating. Dowty Props and all the rest of the firms went running to Mr. MacGregor last week and said, "Hi, hold on, it is all right shouting and bawling about the strike, but it is hitting my pocket and my Caribbean holiday." So they are running for cover and the managers who are on £30,000 a year are beginning to say, "I am fighting for my job."
Some of the pits that are deteriorating are the ones they want to keep open. It is a bit of luck, but we need a bit of luck. The Prime Minister has had plenty during the last five years. The balance of payments is in a mess, £838 million in the red. That makes one feel a bit better. Interest rates have stopped going up for a while because of the economic summit and the Common Market election. They have rigged the money supply. All these problems are on one plate at one time.
No wonder the Government are in trouble. They have the world debt to think about as well. The Prime Minister has got people here to talk about bailing out Brazil, the bankers, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico and all the rest. She is bailing out the farmers. After the Common Market election she will bail out the Common Market, but she cannot look after a British industry like coal mining. That shows where the Government's priorities lie.
What about the demands? Hon. Members will remember what happened when roads were blocked in Nottinghamshire. We read in the Daily Telegraph last week that farmers were blocking roads at Aberystwyth during the milk race. They blocked every main road with Land Rovers and tractors. There was a little piece on the front page of the newspaper. I made inquiries and sent a letter to the Home Secretary. Not a single arrest was made. That is the kind of double standard and hypocrisy that the Government practise to try to beat the miners, but they will not win, because we are on the victory trail.
We have never been more confident. The coal board conceded Cortonwood last week and Polmaise. We have a list as long as one's arm that it will have to concede before this is settled. We will call for the writing off of the debt. We will call upon the miners to make sure that when they put in a pay claim in November, when there is hardly any coal at the pit top, that claim will cover all the money that they have lost, every single penny. We shall get rid of the evil bonus scheme as well so that every miner is made the same and the bonus moneys are incorporated in the day wage. We shall get rid of the massive overtime that has been worked and then we shall demand a four-day week so that we can obtain more jobs for young miners in all mining constituencies. Before we go back to work—listen to this carefully — we shall demand that every miner who has been sacked by the NCB during the dispute is reinstated.
This will be a historic victory for the miners, make no mistake about that. It will change the entire industrial—economic power base of Britain. The rest of the working


class will remember the dispute. They will remember the sacrifices made by 150,000 miners and their families. We shall smash the myth of the Prime Minister's so-called industrial invincibility. The miners united will never be defeated.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Before I deal with the inimitable rendering of Alice in Wonderland by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), it is my pleasant duty to be the first Conservative Member to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on his fine maiden speech. His depth of knowledge of his constituency, his lucidity, and his humour will ensure that he has a receptive audience when he speaks in future and will ensure also that his constituents have a powerful voice in Parliament.
The debate has inevitably aroused strong passion and it is important to consider the basic principles which underlie the problems. Tragic and perilous events are taking place in Iraq and Iran and in the Gulf and they underline the basic lesson which we had to learn so painfully in the 1970s. That lesson taught us that we must have our own dependable sources of energy. The lesson will be rubbed home again and again in the years to come as the world's appetite for energy increases and as the reserves of oil begin to run out. It is a lesson that underlies "Plan for Coal" and the strategic importance of domestically produced coal to the British economy.
That was recognised in "Plan for Coal" in Sir Derek Ezra's preamble. Sir Derek made an equally important statement at the end of his preamble when he said:
Of course, the size that we can make Britain's mining industry rests ultimately on our ability to remain competitive … That means improving our performance in tons and productivity.
The two factors inevitably go hand in hand.
Four years later, in 1978, the then Labour Government echoed the sentiments expressed by Sir Derek Ezra when it produced a Green Paper that stated:
How much reliance we shall be able to place on coal in the future will depend upon the industry's success in deploying those assets so as to keep coal competitive.
The report identified four basic ingredients for a successful coal industry: willing customers, investment, productivity, and competitive prices.
The customers are there, or they were until the present industrial action started. More and more companies were thinking seriously of switching to coal as their source of energy. More British companies were looking to local pits to meet their needs. It is right that tribute should be paid to the marketing arm of the National Coal Board for its great success in the work which it has undertaken. As recently as March a major order was signed which would have brought about 50,000 tonnes of coal demand to pits in my constituency. Export markets are improving also. It is right to recognise the great skills of Mr. MacGregor in exploiting his wide knowledge of the world market for coal.
Investment is there also. The Government have invested many billions of pounds more than "Plan for Coal" demanded to make our coal industry truly effective. That is not the action of a Government who, as Labour Members suggest, are seeking to butcher the coal industry.
It is the productivity of the mining industry which has failed to live up to "Plan for Coal". We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that

in the decade from 1972–73 the mining industry achieved an increase in productivity of only 4·7 per cent. when the target was 4 per cent. a year. It is only in the past year that the 4 per cent. increase in productivity has been achieved, when the Government's policies were beginning to bite.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose——

Mr. Batiste: I shall give way later.
From the lack of productivity has come increasingly uncompetitive pricing with a crippling knock-on effect on the remainder of British industry. Steel, enginering and many other industries have suffered heavily from high electricity costs caused by the high cost of coal. Those of us who are committed to the development of coal must not be blind to the problems that high coal costs cause to other industries. To subsidise coal prices is not to provide the answer. Other industries will have to pay taxes to provide subsidy support for the coal industry. Productivity increases are the only realistic answer to energy problems.
It is a tragedy that the strike has come when the light was beginning to be visible at the end of the tunnel. In my constituency in west Yorkshire there are three pits. The circumstances facing the pits clearly illustrate many of the problems which have been discussed this afternoon Allerton Bywater is an older pit in which there has been heavy investment to give it access to large long-life reserves. It is a pit which serves industries in the area. It employs 1,000 and it is especially at risk when customers who seek to use their coal., weigh the prospects of dependability. The protracted strike that we are suffering will mean lost production for that pit, lost markets and. inevitably, less security for the future of the pit.
The two other pits in my constituency provide a contrast. These are the pits of Ledston Luck and Saville. Saville is in the process of closing, and Ledston Luck is scheduled for closure in two and a half years. Those who wish to remain in the coal industry will all have jobs in Selby as it develops or in other adjoining pits. The complaint that I receive from miners at Ledston Luck and Saville is that they are not being moved quickly enough to new pits such as Selby and not that their pits are being closed. In those circumstances, it is especially depressing to hear the dismissive comments of Labour Front Bench spokesmen about the investment in major new pits, which will be the life-blood of areas such as mine and of the mining industry as a whole.
All the investment is being put at risk because the investment which has already taken place is being dissipated.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: rose——

Mr. Batiste: No, I shall not give way.
There is little advantage for a British industrial manager in subsituting the fanatical ranting of the Ayatollah Khomeini for that of Arthur Scargill. There is no advantage to my constituents to hear the hon. Member for Bolsover delight in and joke about the damage that is being caused to the fabric of their pits. They are the ones who will suffer and it is no laughing matter, although the hon. Member for Bolsover seems to think it is. Mr. Scargill has forced a strike by use of procedures that deny the honourable and democratic traditions of the National Union of Mineworkers.
All the miners who want to stay in the industry have been guaranteed a job, and those who volunteer for


redundancy are treated with unprecedented generosity. The Government are heavily committed to a massive investment programme. The fact that Mr. Scargill has forced a strike against that background demonstrates that his motives are political and not industrial. To do that when the vital customers on whom the industry depends for its future have alternatives to choose from is the height of folly. To do that when large numbers of miners will not follow the lemming-like path to suicide is to compound folly. To use intimidation and violence such as we have seen on the picket lines in Nottinghamshire, Orgreave and elsewhere is unacceptable in a democratic society and equally unacceptable to miners and trade unionists.
Equally deplorable are the hysterical attacks on the police by union leaders and leading members of the Labour party — I refrain from defining them as "leaders". We are fortunate to have a superb police force upon which we can rely. When the mass pickets go to Bolsover to intimidate miners who are returning to work, I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover will support the police while they protect his constituents.
The prospects for the mining industry are outstanding, despite its present problems, if saner and more rational counsels prevail. Miners must accept that increasing productivity is the solution and is as much to their advantage as it is to that of the country as a whole. They must repudiate the policy of violence and intimidation which has been the hallmark of the present leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers. That will restore the confidence on which the coal industry can be rebuilt.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I listened carefully to hon. Members' speeches and to the apparent expert mining knowledge of Conservative Members. I have had 40 years' experience in the mining industry almost to the day. Therefore I can speak from what we in the mining industry describe as the pit point of view. I worked in the mines before they were nationalised. I may not look so old, but I am. I started in 1944 and worked in what was regarded as one of the best private coal companies—even it was savage. The mining industry has developed, especially since nationalisation in 1947. I experienced the ups and downs of various Government policies and the various attitudes of the different chairmen and members of the National Coal Board. Therefore, I have first-hand knowledge from the receiving end. That gives me authority to speak on behalf of the miners, especially those in Northumberland, with whom I have spent much of my lifetime.
One of our major worries since 1944 had been about the uncertainty in the coal industry. We were never confident about our future and were never happy about pay levels. That culminated in the 1972 dispute and the Wilberforce report, which lead to a reasonable pay level.
During the 1974 dispute it was claimed, as it has been since then, that the NUM brought down the Government, I do not believe that. The Government capitulated to public opinion. Following the publication of "Plan for Coal" there was new enthusiasm and confidence in the mining industry.
Many Conservative Members will tend to think that miners are people who work underground for a time, come out again, but who do not think. That is not the case. They

study, read and understand matters put to them. They understood "Plan for Coal" and what it meant for the coal industry. They were confident in it until 1979, when they saw signs of what was to come. They saw manufacturing industry begin to collapse, the demand for fuel, both coal and electricity, being reduced, and their livelihoods and the opportunities for their children slipping away. Anxiety in the mining industry started about 1979 with the decline in manufacturing industry and the beginning of huge stockpiles of coal at power stations.
One of my responsibilities is to represent my constituents. In the mid-1950s we had about 22 mines in my constituency but now we have only one. That reminds me of the question often bandied about in the Chamber: what is an economic and what is an uneconomic pit? Who is responsible for the classification of pits? The coal mine in my constituency started in the 1800s. I worked there for 23 years, and when I visited it last year it was classified as uneconomic. Management had a question mark over its future. They questioned whether reserves would last for five or 10 years. The men who worked in the pit, and some members of junior management, said that the machinery on the coal-producing faces was not right for the job. They argued and argued, and finally someone either in London or in the local headquarters in the north-east conceded that the machines should be changed. This year the pit is economic because the machines were changed—not on the advice of senior management, but on the advice of the men who operate the machines.
We talk about mines closing because they are uneconomic but we tend to think that the miners are responsible for the present problems and furore. The general attitude of the media suggests that the miners are responsible for the problems in the coal industry. In my neighbouring constituency —I am sorry that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is not present — is the Lynemouth pit, which, before the boundary changes, was part of my constituency. Many of my constituents worked there. In 1966 senior management decided to operate a new mining practice. The colliery operates under the North sea for about four miles. That makes Tory Members prick up their ears because they did not realise that there are massive coal reserves under the North sea. The method of mining used supported the sea bed. They used a special technique which had been popular for many years for such conditions. In its wisdom the board decided to change the operation and started a longwall system. That resulted in broken coal being left in the works when the machinery moved on. Such conditions, which are well known in the industry, lead to spontaneous combustion and the possibility of a serious fire.
In 1966 the major part of the colliery had to be permanently flooded and coal reserves written off, not because the miners did not produce coal, not because of a lack of coal reserves or because the pit was unprofitable. The whole economic set-up was correct, but somebody decided to operate a system that was totally irrelevant to that mining operation. That resulted in our losing the colliery in 1966.
The board decided to put a tremendous amount of money into that mine to get it operational again. It combined it with Ellington colliery next door, although they were still separate operational units. The pit re-opened in 1968, but it closed completely in 1983. In 1965 it provided 2,000 jobs; at the beginning of this year there


were fewer than 400 workers salvaging material and carrying out maintenance. Not one miner in that pit was responsible for its closure, but it has gone—a colliery which the chairman of the coal board in 1964 said had 80 years of life in it. That colliery and the one next to it are now flooded, and many millions of tonnes of coal under the North sea cannot be excavated because of the board's decision at the time. The closure had nothing to do with the miners, but much to do with management, and 1,500 jobs have been lost that could have gone to the young people of my constituency.
Who in the present dispute has questioned the board about such matters? To my knowledge, no one has. We should remember that in the north-east most of the pits on the Northumberland and Durham coasts are under the North sea and depend upon the right operation and the right management.
There is an example in my constituency of what can be done to assist the mining industry. In the late 1960s, when Labour was in power, an aluminium smelting company applied to come to Britain. With Government encouragement, financial support and special arrangements, a smelter was established in my constituency, which is now one of the most profitable parts of that company's international operation.
The smelter is fuelled by coal; it has its own power station, which uses 1 million tonnes of coal a year. It provides 1,100 jobs and the workers are almost entirely ex-miners. The managing director told me—his claim is correct—that it probably supports another 5,000 jobs in the area. That is what the mining industry needs. We should have such operations in all mining areas. No one is hell-bent on keeping open pits that are exhausted or where the conditions are such that one could not expect people to work in them. We want a combination of the pits from which coal can be extracted being kept open together with the introduction of new industries to use that coal.
Although I have concentrated on my area, I am certain that the conditions there are reflected in Durham and in parts of Yorkshire. I was interested to read a document produced last year by the Nottinghamshire NUM, which talked in detail about pit closures in Nottingham. I am happy to see the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) back in the Chamber— [HON. MEMBERS: "He has been on television."] I hope that he donates his fee to the miners' cause. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Nottinghamshire. I understand the position there, because in the 1960s many miners from my area went to work there.

Mr. Andy Stewart: And from Scotland.

Mr. Thompson: I bet that the miners on strike in Nottinghamshire are those who came from my area and from Scotland, because they know what happened there and they know that it could be repeated in Nottinghamshire. The hon. Gentleman also talked —perhaps facetiously—about there being no pit ponies now. I assure him that one colliery in Northumberland has 45 pit ponies, and one pleasure I had before I left the industry was to see the pit ponies in their stalls. When I look across the Floor of the House I see that things have not changed much.
I have lost count of the number of chairmen of the Coal Board since 1947. There have been various degrees of criticism of those men and the job they did, but for most

of them there was some respect. Some were good, some bad and some indifferent, but none were like the man who is now in charge of the Coal Board. During our debates on the coal industry many Conservative Members have said that the miners should have a national ballot. There was a national ballot to elect the president of the NUM, who got a 70 per cent. majority. I would recommend that the NUM hold a national ballot to determine whether the miners have confidence in the chairman of the NCB.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) mentioned the tripartite arrangement among the Government, the NCB and the NUM. There is another tri-partite arrangement now among the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Energy and the chairman of the Coal Board. That arrangement is to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I pay tribute to my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and welcome him to the House. His was a noble speech, and we all look forward to hearing more from him. It is significant that he was elected with a substantial majority one year into a new Parliament. We have been entertained by that comic turn, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who had to make up for the appalling performance by the official spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who made one of the most incompetent speeches from the Labour Benches. However, the hon. Member for Bolsover brightened our day, and for that we should thank him.
This is about the third time that we have had a debate on the coal industry in this Parliament, but it is the first one in Opposition time. Apart from a squalid little debate that launched an attack on the police force, this debate represents a moment of despair for the Opposition on two counts. They are on a hiding to nothing, first, on "Plan for Coal", because, as we heard so eloquently and convincingly from speaker after speaker from the Conservative Benches, and as was so ably presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government have implemented "Plan for Coal" as far as it is their responsibility under that plan.
The only exception is output, which has shrunk. Are the Opposition seriously suggesting that output should be increased from 100 million tonnes to 135 million tonnes? What will we do with the stockpiles? Only today the president of the NUM said that he will never again allow stockpiles to be created. What will happen to that extra 35 million tonnes? Is it to be poured back down the pits to be pulled out again by young miners to allow them to become ill with pit diseases? Perhaps that is what the Opposition want.
As regards the argument about agricultural surpluses, the hon. Member for Bolsover will know that all Conservative Members are opposed to surpluses, but it is this Government who have taken the initiative in the EEC and brought about the first reduction in agricultural surpluses. That is a substantial achievement.

Mr. Allen MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should tell that to his dairy farmers.

Mr. Howarth: I will say that to my dairy farmers as well.
Thanks to the arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made, the worst cases will be alleviated. This Government, as they always do, have tackled the problem. They have not flinched from difficult decisions.
The Government have kept their Bargain, as we have heard, with record investment. The previous Labour Government provided about £1,500 million. I refer to thousands of millions because billions are confusing. People might think that billions are small figures. Thousands of millions puts the matter in perspective. This Government invested £3,889 million of taxpayers' money between 1979 and 1984. A further £3,000 million is planned for the next three years.
At current prices, investment between 1974 and 1983 has totalled £7,150 million. That has exceeded the target of £6,500 million. On pit closures, "Plan for Coal" assumed a 3 million to 4 million tonnes reduction in capacity. Only 1 million to 2 million tonnes was achieved — only half the target. The Opposition are trying to make out "Plan for Coal" to be a bargain — almost a binding contract, except that they do not believe in binding contracts when it does not suit them.
There was supposed to be a 4 per cent. increase per annum in productivity but it was only 4·7 per cent. in 10 years. In 1983 miners' pay was some 26 per cent. above the average pay for manufacturing. On redundancy——

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will not be there for long.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Bolsover should not make remarks like that. I intend to represent Cannock and Burntwood for many years. He can turn up in my constituency as many times as he likes to do a comic turn.
We have again received assurances that there are to be no compulsory redundancies. That must be evidence of a Government who understand the difficulties faced by mining communities. The redundancy payments for those who are prepared to accept them are massive. The terms offered to the miners are the envy of people in the private sector who have been made redundant. Opposition Members should ask their constituents who have been made redundant in the private sector.
The Government and the taxpayer have fulfilled their bargain. With the funding of £130 per man per week there is no doubt that the Government have done their bit. I shall give the Labour party some advice. They should become more concerned with the efficient use of public money.
If the public sector as a whole had been less apparently self-serving, less complacent, and more efficient then the climate for cuts and privatisation would have been altogether far less favourable.
Those were the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
That brings meneatly to the second reason why the debate is a disaster for the Opposition. It has been put off for 13 weeks. The Opposition have ducked the issue. They have not wanted a debate in their own time, but today we have it, and it represents the triumph of extremism over the Left. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke of puppets on a string. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen listened they might learn something.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My hon. Friend talks about a disaster for the Opposition. That was perhaps epitomised more than ever this afternoon by the arrest of 120 miners outside the House of Commons for trying to cause a riot.

Mr. Howarth: We have already heard that they were much encouraged by Opposition Members participating. Perhaps that was the reason. The Opposition Front Bench have become puppets on a string. It is a string pulled by one of the most offensive and dangerous demagogues that the country has seen for many a long year. Their dilatoriness and half-hearted attitude towards some of the most disgraceful scenes on the picket line has encouraged some of the worst excesses.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the hon. Gentleman been?

Mr. Howarth: I have not, and I shall say why. I do not believe that it is the job of responsible politicians to inflame difficult circumstances, and I have stayed away deliberately.
We have read today that paint stripper has been thrown at policemen, three of whom have suffered substantial burns. Those of my constituents who are miners — [Interruption.] That is why I am here. They, not a Labour Member, voted me here. The hon. Gentleman had better become used to the idea that the Conservative Benches represent more miners than do the Opposition Benches, and will continue to do so.
Those of my constituents who work at Littleton Colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) have had bags of urine thrown at them. That kind of behaviour does not constitute peaceful picketing. The NUM does not want peaceful picketing; it wants the right to impose its views on those who disagree with it.
We have been subjected on television to pictures of many hundreds of our policemen, drawn from small communities, which are denuded of protection while the police have to maintain the Queen's peace. The police are not participating in an industrial dispute. They are there to uphold the rule of law, and hold the ring to allow the conflicting interests to be reconciled peacefully. I, and 99 per cent. of the people, believe that they have done a magnificent job.
I should like to pay tribute to those miners in my constituency and elsewhere who are still working. I have described some of the abuse to which they have been subjected. We are all familiar with some of the examples. They run a gauntlet every day. Just as Opposition Members suggest that we may find it hard to understand matters, I do not believe that they understand the feelings of those men as they approach in their coaches protected by our police to go through those picket lines manned by their own colleagues. They have to run the gauntlet and possibly suffered injury. The Opposition do not understand what it is like for the wives at home, perhaps hiding behind the curtain.
The good news is that every day more and more men are returning to work. I have not received a green card today because most of my constituents are at work and not down here. They are looking after their families and helping to build the future of a great industry.
About 70 per cent. of my constituents who work in the mines are back at work. It is interesting to note that that


figure reflects the way they voted when given the opportunity to vote. They have since been denied that opportunity.
Bitter resentment is felt by many miners throughout the country at the total and abject failure of the NUM to give them what they want — a national ballot. They might even vote—odd though that sounds to the Opposition—for a strike, simply to get it out of the way. They might have done so a few months ago, but I do not believe that they will now, because they feel very bitter about what has happened.
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), 20 pickets at the Lea Hall colliery came off the picket line and went in to work. We have all heard the story of how the pickets said to the chaps going in, "Just you wait until we get back." After the 20 pickets had gone underneath into the mines, the resentment was so bitter that they were sent to Coventry and came out again, despised by those colleagues who were working.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) said, 15,000 miners are contracting out of the political levy. What an indictment it is for the Labour party to see that those who are supposedly the backbone of its support are contracting out. The miners want nothing to do with the Labour party, so long as it is run by men such as those we see today—the extremists. Miners are even leaving the Labour party.
In my constituency, 250 miners at Littleton colliery signed a petition — not against the police and about police brutality but thanking the police for what they have done. I am told that the relationships between the striking pickets and the police are so good that many striking miners contributed to the police fund for WPC Fletcher, who was shot dead in London.
When the Opposition talk about getting around the table and a settlement, they are talking about appeasement. They want the coal board to give in, because they know that Arthur Scargill has no intention of discussing anything. He has said that pit closures are not up for discussion. Scargill knows that this is a political strike. He wants revolution. Every hon. Member has put himself before the people in the electorate, whether they are miners or not. We have gone around the streets putting ourselves before all our constituents. If Arthur Scargill wants to change the laws of the land, the way for him to do it is to put himself up for Parliament and take a seat, if he can win one.
For the sake of those who are abiding by the law, for the sake of those who are working and for the sake of democracy and the rule of law, I hope that the NCB and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not doubt that the people of Britain expect them to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and that the NUM, led by Arthur Scargill, does not usurp the powers of the House. They expect them to stand firm in this battle.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Secretary (Mr. Paul Dean): I remind the House that, at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker asked for 10-minute speeches. Only one hon. Member so far has met that request. Hon. Members who speak for longer than 10 minutes will prevent other hon. Members, who have strong convictions and points to make, from being called.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The House has just heard a bitter and vindictive speech from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), which has done nothing towards helping to resolve the dispute. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for the Conservative party on as narrow and as vindictive a political basis as possible. I shall pick up a few of his points.
In his opening comments, the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and that was his privilege. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who also made a maiden speech. Both hon. Members were making maiden speeches and both deserve credit. The hon. Member for Stafford will have a difficult job in following Sir Hugh Fraser, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley will have a difficult time in following our friend, Joan Evans. I pay tribute to both hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, when speaking about redundancy payments, showed that the Conservatives are good at discussing what they will do when people have lost their jobs. The Labour party wishes to preserve jobs. Instead of spending time talking about what they wish to do about people who are kicked out of their jobs, there should be more discussion about the preservation of jobs. The hon. Gentleman's speech vividly illustrated how the Conservative party views the strike when he spoke about "my dairy farmers". Labour Members like to speak about "our miners", whom we represent and who are suffering severely.
When Conservative Members speak of us ducking the issue of the mining strike, they should bear in mind that the Labour party has been demanding this debate. When they talk about my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) making a comic speech, they really mean that my hon. Friend's speech hit home hard. That is their way of trying to mock him and belittle a magnificent speech which, in may ways, demolished what the Conservatives say.
We have reached this disastrous state of affairs largely because of a series of miscalculations by the Government and the National Coal Board. They are directly responsible for the immense damage that has been done not only to the mining industry, but to the cohesiveness of our society. We are facing serious unrest. That unrest will percolate and spread if we are not careful. More provocative speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood will make people angrier.
There is a catalogue of cardinal errors. The Government have regarded the miners as enemies to be beaten, and that is a major error. Because of the Government's obsession with anti-trade unionism, their failure to understand the legitimate anxieties of working men and women and their belief that force settles everything, the Government are largely responsible for the strike and its consequences. The Government can no longer hide by saying that the coal board is responsible, because, with the revelations of the past few days, the Government stand exposed as hypocritical and as lying in the face of all the facts. They should be ashamed of the way they have behaved in the House of Commons.
Sooner or later, the Prime Minister must stand at the Dispatch Box and say why she said to hon. Members that she is not interferring in the dispute. The right hon. Lady must answer to the House. The answer will be damaging to the Prime Minister and to the Government. Even more regrettably, it will be damaging to the House of Commons, because it will lower our standards. As Mr. Speaker keeps on reminding us, we are all hon. Members, and we should not tell lies in the House.
The second mistake is for the coal board and its chairman to adopt the 19th century overbearing attitude of saying, "This is what I am going to give you, take it or leave it, and if you don't like it, well, that's just too bad." That attitude has created more anxiety and anger among the miners than practically anything, apart from the Government's attitude.
The third mistake is for Ministers to assume that the miners can be starved out. The miners cannot be starved out. That is a basic error of judgment. Ministers should recognise that not everyone in society is motivated by pure profit and loss accounts. We do not believe in that kind of simple balance-sheet judgment. We have better values, and the miners have better values, than that. That is why the miners cannot be starved out by this or by any other Government.
A further error is for the Government to assume that they will weaken the resolve of the miners and the rest of the trade union movement. Earlier this week I was at the annual conference of my own trade union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. David Basnett, the general secretary, spoke of the miners' strike. David Basnett suggested on Monday that the TUC should set up a fund, long overdue, to help the miners, and he asked for substantial support. I believe that that substantial support will be forthcoming.
The Government have also made the cardinal error of hitting the miners' families by pretending that they receive £15 a week, which we all know they do not receive. To pretend in that way, and to starve miners' wives and their children of £15, was disgraceful. It is what I can only call the height of hypocrisy for the Government to say that they were not intervening in the dispute, and then to clobber miners' wives in that fashion. Even lower than that, if one can go lower than that, is to take account of the pitiful gifts given to miners' wives, who have an abysmal living standard, and to reduce their social security payments because of those gifts. Do the Government in their hearts want to justify that kind of policy? Do they appreciate what is happening in this dispute, all dressed up with fancy phrases, lovely sentences and clichés by the Secretary of State, by Ministers and by some Conservative Back Benchers?
I have a great deal more to say, but I shall not say it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I respect your request for short speeches and I want my hon. Friends to be able to make their contributions.
The Government have divided the country: some are pro-miner, some are anti-miner. The dispute has caused grave divisions. The Government have divided the police force, because the police are fighting among themselves about how the should behave towards the miners. Some police spokesmen have said that they are unhappy about the way that the police are behaving under the Government. I wish to ask this question of the Minister

who will reply to the debate: did the police who stopped the miners in Stoke-on-Trent the other day observe the law, or did they break the law? If they observed the law, would the Minister please tell me under which law they were working? If they broke the law, would he please tell me what action is being taken against them? I am not saying that they broke the law; I merely ask.
What is needed now is a negotiated settlement—no preaching, no bulldozing, but a negotiated settlement, a little bit of good will, a little bit of understanding, a little bit of co-operation—but do not try to kick miners or anybody else around. Given good will, the dispute can be settled tomorrow.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: I must tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House, whether it likes it or not, that I speak on behalf of 10,000 men whose jobs depend upon the steelworks in Scunthorpe. I was elected as Member of Parliament for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I come to the House equipped with all the constitutional rights that our constitution gives us, and one of them is to speak for my constituents, whether the Opposition like it or not. In addition to the 10,000 jobs in my constituency that are dependent upon the steelworks in Scunthorpe, several hundred jobs are dependent upon the steelworks at Orgreave. Of the five major integrated steel plants, we are the only one to burn 100 per cent. British coal, 51,000 tonnes per week, to produce 60,000 tonnes of some of the finest quality steel in the world. Eleven pits supply us with that coal. Six of those pits are in Yorkshire—Silverwood, Binnington, Thurcroft, Hatfield, Grimethorpe and Treeton. In addition to the jobs that depend upon the steelworks in my constituency, 6,000 miners owe their jobs to Scunthorpe.
As we know, because we watch it day after day on television, Mr. Arthur Scargill is inciting his members to try to starve Scunthorpe of coke and coal. I ask the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I endeavoured to get him to give way to me when he opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition—what is the message from the Opposition Benches to my constituents? What has the right hon. Member for Salford, East to say to the steelworkers of Scunthorpe? What the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Salford, East and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) have to say to the steelworkers of Scunthorpe?

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose——

Mr. Hickmet: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Salford, East, but not to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
At present, Mr. Scargill is trying to put those 10,000 men out of work. I hope that I do not need to tell hon. Members what will happen if we do not get coal and coke for those glass furnaces. My constituents will be sacrificed on the altar of the political ambitions of Mr. Arthur Scargill.

Mr. Hardy: rose——

Mr. Hickmet: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Wentworth. I will give way to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) or the right hon. Member for Salford, East to answer the question. They have ducked the question for 13 weeks. I do not expect an answer from


the Leader of the Opposition, because he has no guts, I cannot expect an answer from the right hon. Member for Salford, East for a similar reason, and I do not expect an answer from the hon. Member for Midlothian, because the question is unanswerable. If we do not get that coal, and if we do not get that coke—[Interruption.]

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recall that a couple of days ago Mr. Speaker gave a ruling in the House that the way in which a particular word was used was to be taken in the context of its usage. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) referred to the Leader of the Opposition in a term that was clearly derogatory and intended to incite, which must surely be unparliamentary in its context. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to request the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I deprecate some of the aggressive language that has been used, but I would not say that it has been unparliamentary. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) should contribute to the debate. He is, of course, responsible for his own speech.

Mr. Hickmet: If we do not get the coal and coke that the steelworks require, the plant will become irreparably damaged. If the coke ovens at Scunthorpe are damaged, it may take 18 months to replace them, at vast capital cost. In addition, it will take at least four months to reline any blast furnaces that are damaged. One of our four blast furnaces was taken out on Monday due to an insufficient volume of coke. Other furnaces are in difficulty.
When that damage occurred, the NUM was asked urgently for further supplies of coke, but it refused to answer that request. On Wednesday, the coke run from Orgreave commenced. Hitherto, the coke and coal provided to us under an agreement between the ISTC and the NUM had been insufficient in quantity and quality. If coal and coke does not reach the steelworks and if, as a result, my constituents lose their jobs, there will be no alternative work for them. Alternative employment is not being offered to them. They will not receive large sums in redundancy payments. There will be no treatment for them similar to that being offered to the miners.

Mr. Boyes: rose——

Mr. Hickmet: I will give way only to one of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, but I do not anticipate them endeavouring to rise.
I thank the police, on behalf of my constituents and the town of Scunthorpe, for saving the jobs of the steelworkers there. The scenes of violence on the picket lines have been a disgrace to the whole trade union movement, to the NUM and to the Labour party. On occasions, in an effort to prevent coke reaching Scunthorpe, as many as 6,000 pickets have tried to prevent the coal lorries from leaving the plant.
Police officers have been subject to attack by a hail of stones, bricks, smoke bombs, ball-bearings, nail-studded potatoes and paint stripper. A telegraph pole was uprooted and used as a battering ram against the police lines, a building was overturned and set on fire and officers have been hauled from the police line and beaten up. Meanwhile, the police have stood between the gates of Orgreave and the pickets so that the coke could go to Scunthorpe.
On the day when I visited Orgreave, two pickets had to be given the kiss of life by two police officers. They had sustained their injuries by bricks which had been thrown from the back of the picket line or by the crush of the pickets. While the kiss of life was being given, the hail of stones continued. Yet Opposition Members dare criticise the police for the use of horses. They were used to save pickets' lives.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition Member, from a sedentary position, to repeat the word "bastard" to the hon. Member who is addressing the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that were the case, it would certainly not be in order. However, I did not hear the word used. Let us proceed with the debate.

Mr. Hickmet: Many officers have been put in hospital with serious injuries, including broken bones and, in one case, a dislocated shoulder. On behalf of my constituents, I praise the police for their self-discipline, courage and restraint, and I congratulate their senior officers on the superb way in which they have acted. If the police had not been at Orgreave, my constituency would have been in a very difficult position indeed, for the jobs of my constituents could have been in jeopardy. It is as simple as that: the police have been standing between the NUM and my constituents' jobs.
I cannot see any justification for the attempt by the president of the NUM to close the steelworks in my constituency. Again, I invite the right hon. Member for Salford, East to say what justification he can offer for that. I think I see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head in dissent, which must mean that he has no answer. In that case, will the hon. Member for Midlothian address himself to that question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have reminded hon. Members of the need for speeches to be kept brief. The hon. Member is getting near to tedious repetition by challenging the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Hickmet: The attack by the president of the NUM on the steelworks of Scunthorpe may have come about because he needs a victory of some sort, and the closure of those works would have been such a victory. However, the ISTC has refused to join his suicide pact; a triple alliance is one thing but a suicide pact is another. The greatest issue between the ISTC and the BSC in my constituency is the use of BSC logos on private contractors' lorries, the reason being that the ISTC believes that its members are in danger should the NUM believe that they are driving those lorries.
The president of the NUM made it clear, both before and after the general election, that he would, if necessary, take to the streets. He declared:
We will have to consider political strikes-political action as well as industrial action.
He warned that if the Conservatives won the election there would be bloodshed in the streets. The general secretary of the TUC, speaking on 1 July of last year, condemned Arthur Scargill for his words and efforts and was reported as having said:
Their brand of extra-parliamentary action was giving trade unions a bad name.


The most remarkable aspect of this attack by the NUM leadership on my constituents and others has been the silence of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.
In view of the number of steel workers who have been made redundant in the last four years, I cannot represent a constituency such as mine without having sympathy for members of the NUM who fear for the future. But it is the duty of the Opposition and of the leadership of the NUM to guide their members, not to take them, as it were, to the barricades. I invite Opposition Members to search their consciences in considering whether the leadership of the NUM has helped its members one jot or tittle.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her maiden speech, as I do the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The choice of the discipline in which hon. Members can make their maiden speech is varied. To have selected a coal debate shows how very important such debates are to Back Benchers. I hope that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will make many similar contributions in the future.
Many individuals have been arrested a number of miles away from pickets, sometimes when they have not been going to pickets. That leaves much to be desired. I know a number of people who have been arrested, who have pleaded not guilty. I shall not name them because their cases are coming up. They have been arrested in Yorkshire, where they live, accused of going to Nottinghamshire to picket. This must be worrying for anyone who believes in a free society, particularly when one thinks of what happened in other countries in the 1930s.
It is worrying that people can be arrested anywhere in the highways and byways, and taken to a gaol or police station. Members of the public say that such people may have been going to cause trouble. It is terrible that a large majority of the country is not unduly disturbed by this. That is frightening because the regime in Germany started like that. When the authorities there started taking people away, the people said that they must have deserved it. The authorities may have come and taken a trade unionist away. A Jew may have said that the trade unionist was probably going to cause trouble, and he may have been taken away himself next. What is going on in our country is terrible and frightening for anybody who believes in civil liberties.
We are fighting and arguing. In Hong Kong we are guaranteeing the freedom of the people to walk where they wish, but certain sections of our society are losing that right. That is frightening to any serious-minded person. That should be borne in mind, and the police should be accountable to someone. Section 413 in part of New Scotland Yard does not appear to be responsible to anyone, and chief constables do not know to whom they are responsible. The Home Secretary has said that he is not responsible for them. If a policeman is convicted of an unlawful act, one cannot object to the chief constable of the area in which the deed is commited. One has to go to the chief constable of the area to which the policeman belongs. The sooner that the Government examine this issue in detail, the better all round.
In "Plan for Coal" it was promised to increase new capacity to 42 million tonnes, and 9 million tonnes of that was to come from the extension of pits. The Government declare that they support "Plan for Coal". "Plan for Coal" envisaged closures running at 2 million tonnes over 10 years, with a total of 20 million tonnes. This is on target. As there has been 21 million tonnes loss of capacity through closures, if this is balanced against the 42 million tonnes of increased capacity, there should be an overall increased capacity of 21 million tonnes. However, that has not taken place. Therefore, the Government cannot say that they are implementing that part of "Plan for Coal".
In March 1982 there were 200 pits and in March 1983 there were 191, so we have lost nine pits in a year. Those are the figures that I have from the coal board. We are still losing more pits, and, although we are implementing our part of "Plan for Coal", there has not been the increase in capacity. Nowhere in "Plan for Coal" did it say that closures should take place to justify investment. It said that there would be closures of 2 million tonnes of capacity a year and that has been done. However, one cannot justify investment through "Plan for Coal" by the closure of uneconomic pits.
The EEC documents on coal published in 1979 asked Britain to produce more coal, and supported British coalfields. I asked the Prime Minister a question about this and she said that that meant that coal production should be increased in other areas but not in Britain. She said that that was not her intention, but it was the intention of "Plan for Coal" and that is important.
The Government and MacGregor want to get rid of 40,000 jobs and start by losing 21,000 in one year from uneconomic pits, but that in itself is uneconomic. There are no uneconomic pits—there are unprofitable ones. Andrew Glyn of The Guardian wrote an article called "Coal not dole, the best choice" a few days ago. In it, he pointed out clearly that all pits are economic because it would cost a lot more to close them. The Government have no right to close pits, as this will cost taxpayers more money, but that is what they intend to do.
If MacGregor gets rid of the 40,000 miners that he wants to get rid of, that will mean the loss of 75,000 jobs in total. It is the multiplier in reverse. It is wrong for the Government to do this, and they should drop this idea and keep the pits open. The dispute is about the Government's desire to close pits, and that will cost taxpayers' money. The coal should be used by the CEGB. How can it be burning oil at the ridiculous price that it is when there is coal? It should use our coal everywhere.
MacGregor is ruining the industry. The Government may desire that, but they should realise that he is also ruining the British economy. They must be bothered about that. It is vital to recognise that for each month of the strike electricity prices to industry will rise by almost 2 per cent. It will be more difficult for industry to export because unit costs will increase.
It is the absolute duty of the Government to ensure that the dispute is settled and that the lads and lasses in my constituency get back to work. It should be settled on reasonable terms, and that means a halt to pit closures. Common sense should prevail, and we should try to get the country back on its feet. We can do that only if all the mines work at full production.
The choice is the Government's. Either the country is ruined economically or it becomes more successful. The Government should grasp the nettle now.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I echo the remarks of many hon. Members and congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is never an easy task to come to the House and make a maiden speech, but both hon. Members made a fine contribution. No doubt we shall hear more from them in the coming years.
The consequences of the coal mining dispute extend far beyond the boundaries of those constituencies with close mining interests. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to draw attention to some of those consequences. I represent a constituency of traditional manufacturing industry. It is of great sadness to my constituency that, once again, the vital life-blood of industry — the supply of energy — is a political battlefield. Energy, above all things, is a subject that demands a consensus policy for the 21st century. The coal industry needs to lose its reputation as a repository of the most bitter and most cynically inspired class warfare of our times.
The largest single industry in my constituency is the paper industry, one of the seven major energy-intensive industries in the country. Energy costs can account for an average 18 per cent. of a mill's manufacturing costs, and in certain cases that proportion can rise as high as 30 to 35 per cent.
The effect of rises in energy costs, from whatever source, are clearly most important. During the past two years the town has lost three major manufacturing mills. The loss of those jobs, together with the jobs in the engineering firms that depend on the industry, now represent in numerical terms more than 50 per cent. of the total male unemployment in my constituency. The position of coal in the supply of electricity is clear to everyone, and with the best will in the world it is not possible to separate the link between the cost of coal, the cost of electricity and the cost of energy to our industry.
For years my constituents have been suffering from matters over which they have had no direct control. One of the likely consequences of the dispute is that, yet again, energy costs will rise. My constituents will be faced not with voluntary but with compulsory redundancies—and compulsory redundancy not cushioned by the generous terms in the package offered to the miners. It is about time that those who seek to exert pressure on manufacturing industry to support their own ends had a thought for the impact on the families who will suffer as a direct consequence of the increased energy costs that their action will bring about.
It would be easy for my constituents to resent the huge sums of money put into the mining industry, but they recognise— as I do—the need for a balanced energy policy that should include a bright future for coal. But they do resent the laughable suggestion that not enough money has gone into that industry. They would have been well content with a fraction of the investment put into the coal during the past five years. But they live in a world where the sales of their products are not protected, as the coal sales from the NCB to the CEGB are protected. If they cannot sell what they produce, they either make the appropriate changes in their business or they go out of business. They see no reason why the coal industry should not face the same economic facts of life.
"Plan for Coal" was considered by House of Lords in its report on the European Community. I want to quote from part 6, paragraph 97. I shall read it in full because it makes a number of points. It states:
By March 1983, £4·5 billion had been invested in the coal industry compared with £3·2 billion (at comparable prices) envisaged in the Plan. While the NUM have been disappointed with the number of new pits sunk, a total of 160 investment projects of over £0·5 million had been completed, providing 17·5 million tonnes annual capacity. Over the same period, the number of collieries was cut from 259 to 191 … While investment had broadly kept pace with the plan, closures fell behind the projected figures and productivity had not improved at the expected rate.
Paragraph 99 stated:
The NCB is producing more coal that it can sell, much of it at costs far in excess of what can be realised from sales. Closure of the highest cost pits would remove over-capacity and would cut losses.
Much is said in those two paragraphs.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) mentioned encouraging more sales for coal, but he failed to deal with the problem that the Government face which is to encourage industry to move from oil-fired to coal-fired boilers; a plan sabotaged by the miners' strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It has. From where will the new customers come? They are not there. All projections have disappeared under the strike.
I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman and also the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) did not make any reference to the problems of violence and intimidation. I doubt very much whether they could have done the same justice to that subject as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who made by far the most exceptional contribution to the debate.
We abuse the energy industry at our peril. It is singularly abused by the perpetuation of the myth that some Opposition Members and some leaders of the mineworkers want to foster—that the coal industry has no friends on the Conservative Benches and that the nation has no interest in coal as a future energy source. It suits their political purpose to put that over, and to encourage others to believe it. It does not benefit the coal industry. The fact that it is palpably untrue is proved by the Government investment that was capably set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his speech. Many of my colleagues share his belief that an efficient, productive and useful coal industry has a worth and a benefit far beyond its own boundaries by the benefit of the country as a whole. The industry has friends on the Conservative Benches, but it is making it very difficult for our voices to be heard.
The smokescreen of political involvement that Opposition Members have sought to latch on to cannot. disguise the fact that the political content of this strike was engineered by the president of the NUM right from the start. He had failed on three previous occasions in his stated aim to seek to overturn an elected Government through the use of a miners' strike. In this dispute, he saw a final opportunity to do that. It is a disgrace that a moderate and decent work force should have been abused to such an extent for the political purposes of that president and his Marxist supporters.
No legislation produced by a Conservative Government could ever have produced the number of miners going through the picket lines that Arthur Scargill's immoderate leadership has produced. No legislation of a Conserative Government could have forced so many miners down the


pits to work at such a time. No legislation produced by a Conservative Government could ever have induced miners in Nottingham to doubt the wisdom of their membership of the NUM and to consider withdrawing their subscriptions from the Labour party. They are seeing through the man in the chauffeur-driven car searching for the £80,000 house, who manages to dribble his socialism out of the other side of his mouth and talk about the fall of capitalism while he enjoys its benefits.
The Opposition motion is an abject and inept attempt to disguise their embarrassment at their treatment of the coal industry over a period of years. It is an attempt to gloss over their record of pit closures and investment. It is an attempt to curry favour with the more extreme element of their party — with the extremists who hurl abuse even in the House of Commons at those hon. Members who have dared to criticise violence on the picket lines.
The Opposition motion is an attempt to paper over the yawning cracks in the labour movement which the parliamentary Labour party now represents. Above all, it is a forceful reminder of the craven attitude of deference to the bully boys, the retreat into economic unreality and the desire to avoid trouble at any cost which would be the hallmarks of any future Labour Administration.

8 pm

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on two points. First, I join him in congratulating the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on their maiden speeches and look forward to hearing more contributions of such a high standard from them. I join, too, in their tributes to their predecessors. I worked with loan Evans for many years. I knew his dedication and sincerity and the impact that he had on the House and his passing was a matter of great sadness. Sir Hugh Fraser, too, made a major and characteristic contribution to our debates and in his constituency. I knew him well and very much regret his passing.
It is clear to anyone who stands back and takes an independent view, as regrettably few hon. Members have done in today's debate, that there will be no great victory for anyone when the dispute ends, as eventually it must. There will be no victory for the miners, for the National Coal Board, for the Government or for the country because the stoppage in the industry will damage everyone, and it is in no one's interest that it should last a day longer than necessary.
That brings me to the second point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Bury, North. He said at the beginning of his speech, but unfortunately did not continue in the same vein, that the mining industry would benefit from a far greater consensus about its objectives and its position in the country. For too long, like so many of our industries, it has been a political football. That has been detrimental not just to the mining industry but to many other industries which depend on the energy industry.
First, I wish to consider the Government's position in the dispute. They clearly play an important role. I in no way support the criticisms of the Government expressed by some of the more raucous Opposition Members. Nevertheless, the Government's lack of a clear energy

policy has not helped the climate and the background against which the dispute has been debated and against which Mr. Scargill and his supporters have discussed these matters with their members. It is a scandal that in a country such as this there has been no comprehensive statement of Government energy policy since the Labour Government's Green Paper of 1978. Equally incredible is the fact that we are discussing future plans for the coal industry on the basis of a plan agreed in 1974 and drawn up before the impact of the first oil crisis in 1973 had hit the world, before the second oil crisis, before North sea oil came on stream and before the drop in demand in the 1970s. None of those factors has been taken into account except in occasional reviews. It is dreadful that there has been no truly co-ordinated plan for coal since the Labour Green Paper of 1978.

Mr. Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it may take six or eight years to get a pit into being? That is why one must have long-term plans and that is why the 1974 plan is relevant.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Of course I realise that, but no good business simply makes a corporate plan and then just leaves it without reviewing and adjusting it each year to take account of new circumstances. The Government have failed by not getting round the table with the miners and the NCB to draw up a plan so that the miners could have confidence in the future of their industry. I appreciate that statements have been made by Ministers, but there has not been any agreement of the kind that was reached in 1974 on "Plan for Coal". Such an agreement would have provided encouragement for the miners and much less fertile territory for Mr. Scargill and his friends.
The second factor that has undermined the Government's position has been the horrific level of unemployment caused by their economic policies. The miners would not fear so much for their jobs if there were not 3·5 million people unemployed. That is one of the reasons why they are so worried about their position and about pit closures. The Government must take responsibility for the present economic circumstances. They keep telling us that the sun is shining around the corner and that the upturn is coming, but we merely see the dole queues getting longer. As our debates on industrial and economic policy have shown, all parts of the country are now suffering from the effects of the Government's economic policies. The upturn has not materialised and the miners, like everyone else, are worried about their job security. The Government are thus responsible for having created fertile territory for the militants in that way, too.
The revelations in the Daily Mirror in the past 48 hours have shown that the Government, despite their protestations to the contrary, are extremely involved in the public sector industrial relations scene. That comes as no surprise to me and I am somewhat amazed at some of the comments that have been made in the House. I should be very surprised and rather disappointed if Labour Ministers were not involved in the same kind of way when pay negotiations, disputes or other difficulties arose in the nationalised industries, the Civil Service, the teaching and nursing professions, and so on. Nevertheless, it is no use the Government complaining that they have a "hands off' attitude and no responsibility for what is happening in the industry when the contrary has been proved, and everyone knows it.
That brings me back to the necessity for the Government to acknowledge their responsibility for the industry and to get round the table with the people concerned to discuss the future of the industry with them and to reassure them about it.

Mr. Roy Mason: Ministers not only have that responsibility. Secretly, they have accepted it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has consistently misled the House, saying that she would have no truck whatever with the miners' dispute when, secretly, behind the scenes, she and some of her Cabinet colleagues —the Secretary of State for Energy must certainly have been aware of all that was going on—have formed an alliance and deliberately manipulated other nationalised industries and trade union disputes to ensure that the miners would be on their own so as to defeat them.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) has put it much more clearly than I shall try to do. As he says, Ministers are involved. They should acknowledge their responsibility. They should get round the table with the miners and the NCB and reach an agreement on the future of the industry. In a moment, I shall consider the possible ways in which that could be done. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government have accepted their responsibility.

Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If I give way again, I shall prevent others from speaking.
The NCB chairman has not employed the most felicitous phrases or the most delicate handling of the dispute, and that has made the dispute even more rancorous and bitter than it would otherwise have been. His withdrawal from the discussions demonstrates that that was so. I am also critical of the coal board for not responding long before the dispute began to the suggestion by some of us—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has made the point very vigorously—that some job creation agency should be established, equivalent to that in the steel industry which has been doing good work for years in the steel closure areas. That agency is called BSC (Industry) Ltd. We suggested that another agency should be set up, to be called NCB (Industry) Ltd. The coal board has belatedly accepted such a proposal. We understand that that proposal is on the table in the discussions now taking place. I hope that it will give the mining communities some reassurance, and I hope that the Government will act in partnership with the coal board as with the steel industry. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point tonight.
The Government have backed BSC (Industry) Ltd. in Consett, Hartlepool and Corby in helping to bring new jobs to areas devasted by closure. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will back that initiative by the coal board.
The police have the difficult job of standing between the two sides. I travel through the country every week on my way to my constituency. No-one can take any joy in seeing the dreadful convoys of police going up and down the motorways, lights ablaze, looking like army convoys, as though we were in a state of emergency. Of course, in the areas where the so-called picketing is taking place, there is an emergency. But it is regrettable that in some

instances—the Dartford tunnel incident was the most widely criticised example — the police have stopped people well away from the pits. That is unacceptable in a free society, and an intolerable infringement of civil liberties.
However, I yield to no one in my praise of the police for the way in which they have handled a difficult situation involving thousands of pickets., particularly near the coke ovens but, more recently, in other parts of the country too. If 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 or 6,000 people mass together to carry out what is called picketing but is in fact intimidation, there will be trouble. The police cannot avoid that trouble. Inevitably, there will be accusations and counter-accusations. I hope that the sympathy of the House will be for the police. They are, in a sense, the innocent parties. They are doing the job for us. They should be supported in doing their difficult job.
Finally, who is the main actor in this dreadful dispute? Who are the main cast? I am pleased that there have been speeches from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who have both eloquently demonstrated to the House what the dispute is about. It is about the class warfare and the divisions in British society which have done damage over the decades to our political, social, industrial and economic system.
The House must face the fact that the dispute is about the desire of the leadership of the NUM to pursue their own political ends, using the miners as the poor bloody infantry in their battle. What the NUM leadership is doing is deplorable. The country owes a great deal to the miners and has a great admiration for their work. I share that admiration, and the sympathy for the miners evoked by the. dreadful nature of their work. To see them manipulated for party political ends, as they have recently been, is deplorable. I hope that the House will condemn the way in which the miners have been used.
Why did not the president and vice-president, and executive of the NUM call for a national ballot if they wanted national industrial action? It is a tradition of the NUM—one that has gained it a great deal of support—that there is a national ballot if industrial action is proposed. In this case, the reasons put forward for the dispute were obscure, and the rules and procedures were fiddled in a terrible way so that a national ballot should not take place.
The most deplorable aspect of what the leadership has done is that it has divided miner against miner, husband against wife, father against sort. It has divided the mining communities. I remember previous disputes in the steel industry and the Post Office. I know that the scars that are created will last for generations. What the leadership has done is a dreadful thing for a union to do to its own members. Mr. Scargill, Mr. McGahey and their supporters on the executive are causing strife and bitter divisions among their members.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: No, I must not.
There will be no victory in this dispute. The miners will become a less effective work force. They are damaging the future of their industry. As a result of this dispute, there will be uncertainty about the supply of coal. The memory of the dispute will remain with people for years, in


company after company and industry after industry. They will not use coal or transfer to coal. They will use alternative forms of energy.
The Government may well think on the same lines in considering, for instance, nuclear power. Inevitably—although the Minister will not admit it—the Department of Energy will ensure that there are alternatives to coal. In a sense, it would be irresponsible for the Government not to do so. My constituency is on Teesside. My whole family worked in the steel industry. As well as damaging their own jobs and their own industry—which they may do if they wish—the miners, through this action, are threatening to destroy permanently jobs in the steel industry. I do not think that some miners or people outside the steel communities realise how vulnerable the steel industry is to the stoppage of supplies from the mining industry. It took ages for Llanwern and other coke works to recover from the damage that the corporation suffered before. I could give chapter and verse from the words of the BSC chairman. The industry is suffering again now, and losing jobs as a result of losing markets. If damage is done to the coke ovens and the blast furnaces, works may face permanent closure. There are five steelmaking centres in the country. We probably need only three to cope with present demand. The position is being threatened by the coal industry. I hope that the dispute will be resolved quickly, for everybody's sake. There can be no victory. What is happening is damaging everybody.
The motion and the amendment to it do not reflect the true interests of the industry. They perpetuate the battles—the class and industrial battles between one side of the House and the other and one side of the industry and the other—that we have seen during the debate. It is extremely unfortunate that the procedures of the House do not allow third party motions to be considered and voted upon. We shall not have an opportunity to vote on the alliance amendment which advances our policy, which is distinct from those of the Conservative and Labour parties and which I believe will be supported by the vast majority of English people.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Long speeches are made at the expense only of other Members' time.

Mr. David Ashby: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said. I agree with his point about a National Coal Board (Industry) Ltd. and the need for close relations between the NCB and local authorities to develop areas that have often hitherto been left devastated. I raised the matter with a Minister some weeks ago when I took him to my constituency where mines such as Snibston are closing.
One of the problems that arises when mines close, as has happened in my constituency, is that the local authority has been mine orientated for many years. It has tunnel vision of what the area requires. It might for many years have examined applications for planning permission and if the businesses concerned have not been mining orientated, permission has been refused. Those who face mine closures should examine what has happened for the

past 30 years, examine planning consents and see whether industry has been encouraged to the area concerned. Local authorities have been at fault in the past 30 years. Such local authorities are almost always Labour-controlled and they bear the responsibility for the failure of jobs in areas of pit closures. The Labour party certainly bears responsibility for that in my area as, until recently, it has been in control for a long time.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South that we have witnessed a tragedy for Britain and mining areas. Communities have been set against each other. It is also a tragedy for the National Union of Mineworkers. It has prided itself on being one of the most democratic unions in the country. It is not widely known that its national ballots are conducted and supervised by the Electoral Reform Society. Until recently the union required a 55 per cent. majority to call a national strike. It is not always realised that a union is a federation and, as such, is fragile. The blatant gerrymandering of the rules makes that federation look all the more fragile. Knowing that it could not get a national majority for a strike, the NUM executive left it to each autonomous area, with its own rules, to make its own decision. Some decided to strike and some decided not to strike. In that regard, democracy prevailed. It was only when Arthur Scargill got to work — he is an avowed activist — and used the weapon of mass picketing to bully those people who democratically and by their union rules had elected to work that the trouble began. He has deliberately pitted miner against miner and autonomous union against autonomous union. He has flouted the rules and his people and is trying to impose his will by intimidation.
Why does Mr. Scargill do that? If the NUM had a good case for not closing old, uneconomic pits that turn in heavy annual losses, there would be no need to employ the tactics that I have described. The union could have argued its case before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission last year when it examined the NCB's costs, efficiency and production.

Mr. Nellist: It did.

Mr. Ashby: No it did not. Twice the NUM was invited and twice it refused to go. Why? Most of the reasons have already been mentioned. It knew it did not have a case. It knew that the NCB had lost a great deal of money and that the Government were pouring money into the industry. It knew that the Government had paid some £1·11 billion to cover the deficit of the past decade and that £964 million of that was attributable to deep-mine pits. The union knows that, since 1979, the Government have poured more than £2 million into the industry each day as a measure of their long-term support for coal mining. The union knows that any sensible and rational person agrees that propping up pits that lose between £30 and £100 for every tonne of coal mined is a waste of money that could be better spent on newer and planned coalfields at Belvoir, Selby, north Warwickshire and north Oxfordshire. It is small wonder that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report called for closure of the worst loss-making pits. That report was endorsed by a Select Committee of the House.
It is clear that we are witnessing the bare-faced desire of Mr. Scargill to force the Government out by undemocratic means. If that is his wish, he must make his bid through the ballot box that he does not seem to like,


in 1988. However, we must wait until 2004 to get rid of him. We are witnessing a triumph of restraint by the vast majority of people, especially my constituents who have been faced with pickets that are led by a man who has refused to condemn violent mass picketing but rather preferred to call the police the trouble-making element. Such words strike a hollow chord in my constituents who were faced with rampaging pickets in early May who wrecked houses and shops. Those words also strike a hollow chord in my constituents who have had cars damaged and windows broken and who are being followed home, having their homes identified and their children intimidated.
My constituents have freely elected to work—in the absence of a national ballot. They hold that freedom most dear and they are extremely grateful for the support that they have had from the police. My area has suffered more than any other from pit closures. I tell Yorkshire miners who sit pretty in their cosy jobs, knowing full well that they have productive pits with plenty of coal, that they should see the positive and sensible way in which my constituents are dealing with the problem and go back to work in their own pits because they have never had it so good.
My constituency's message to the NUM is, either make out a case through a national ballot or shut up and leave us alone. My constituents are satisfied that the Government are looking after their best interests through generous redundancy terms and ensuring the long-term future of the industry through investment at Asfordby in the Vale of Belvoir. They know that the NUM does not have a case and that that is why Scargill will not dare call a ballot. We in Leicestershire will not give in to bullying or intimidation; nor should the rest of the country.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: At one stage the Secretary of State declared that it was fairly obvious that the NUM and the Labour party's energy team never really understood the realities of the "Plan for Coal".
First, let me declare my interest. I am a sponsored member of the NUM. I worked 30 years in the mining industry as an engineer. I was a consultant to the last president of the NUM, and I have been involved as a trade union official for the NUM for some 15 to 20 years.
Let me analyse the tone of the debate. My experience in the trade union movement, in industrial circles and as a parliamentarian, leads me to believe that the major blunder in this dispute was caused by the Government's inability to understand the issue at the beginning. It was not simply a question of long-drawn out negotiations on the wage norm. That took a secondary position for the miners and the NUM.
Ninety four per cent. of the employees of the NCB—including the management and the rank-and-file workers — opposed the appointment of Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB. A referendum of opinion within the industry said that it did not want him and did not need him. There were men of long, wise and prudent ability, expertise and technique within the industry who could well have done the job. It was perfectly clear to the miners that this was a deliberate and calculated appointment. I knew something about the chairman of the NCB before he came to Britain. He was known as the strip mining king in open-cast mining—the quick easy-to-get stuff, fast turnover,

into the wagon, onto the market and into the bank. Thai is his economic outlook. That is what the miners read into the situation and it has come true.
There was an abysmal failure by the NCB and the Government to see what was sacred within our industry — the tripartite agreement that worked for the Government in 1980 when it solved the dispute of the 22 pit closures—could have worked in the same way one this occasion. But that was never intended by the Prime: Minister and the Cabinet because they were out to tame: the miners once and for all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), said, the Ridley report was printed and carried out from A to Z. The recent revelations have shown the trickery and deception that has been involved. Other unions have been manipulated to accept wage increases over and above the general entitlement to other employees throughout the British economy. There is no doubt that that was done deliberately. The Prime Minister does not see fit to be present in the House today. How does she reconcile the present situation with the fact that when dedicated pro-marketeers were working out Europe's future and the seven great industrial nations came together and produced the Venice declaration, she made a commitment to supply the European economy with between 130 million and 140 million tonnes of coal in 1989? Will the heads of state at the economic summit today be told that the Government are now deliberately reneging on that agreement into which they entered?
Whether in coal, oil or nuclear energy the average lead time is a decade. The indictment against the Government is that not one colliery has been sunk since the Government took office. Developments were planned under the previous Labour Government a decade ago. Even though the Government have had to find some capital, it would be untrue to say that they were responsible for that kind of foresight in planning a viable coal industry.
Where will we be in another decade if the energy scenario changes as quickly as it has in the past 20 years? The situation is hazardous and unpredictable. I see that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has moved rapidly from his seat. There is always collusion in the House. That has been evident between the coal board, the Social Democratic party, the Conservative party and other elements here who claim to be democrats. It is almost impossible to plan an energy programme. That is why tripartite agreements and talks on review procedures, systematically and consistently taken, are the best option for a planned energy policy. That is what we need, not someone who is instructed by the Prime Minister to say that the industry simply needs a plan for the future based on narrow, short-term financial gain. That is wrong. Energy needs cannot be planned in that way.
For 25 to 30 years various leaders of the NUM, from the Sydney Fords of this world to the Will Paynters, the Arthur Homers and the Joneses of Yorkshire, right through to the present, have been telling the House and the country about the unpredictable situation in the middle east. We are seeing another demonstration of that. Instead of Opec I want Copec. I know that there will be a security of coal supplies for 300 years. The gas board is already saying that it has only 13 years of real deposits of North sea gas left. Oil prices have ricocheted backwards and forwards and have increased. The choice is security of supply against uneconomic pits. I know pits that were closed in 1970, 1971 and 1972. One was an £80 million project in my


constituency. If the productivity per miner on that project then were compared with costs today, that pit would be making £3 million a year. Pits can be top of the pops in financial terms and bottom of the league in the relegation zone six months later. It is as simple as that. The nature of the industry lends itself to that.
If we need a realistic, sensible and proven fuel policy we must be absolute in our endevours to ensure that we have a strong and viable mining industry with security for our lads in the pits. We need the necessary manpower training for the future. As sure as day follows night, the nation's security of supply must be protected.
For God's sake let no one say to the British miner that he is responsible today for the state of the industry. It is the Government's suicidal economic policies which have destroyed the electricity and gas markets by the savage destruction of our manufacturing industry. It is not their responsibility, and I refute the allegation made by certain hon. Members that it is because coal is uneconomic in terms of pricing that the industry is contracting. That is cant and hypocrisy and it deserves contempt.

Mr. Francis Maude: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) in one of his rare emergences from his enforced silence. I am sorry that as someone with such a detailed background knowledge of the industry he chose to say so much that would bear so little detailed logical scrutiny.
One of the interesting things about the debate is the way in which the mining dispute has been talked about. It has been talked about as though it is a dispute between the miners and the National Coal Board. That is the first fallacy which is demonstrated throughout the midlands coalfield and particularly in the Warwickshire coalfield. The whole of the Warwickshire coalfield is contained in my constituency; there are four mines, all of which are working at nearly full capacity.
When Opposition Members talk about the miners and their determination to stand up to the coal board they should understand and recognise that in every coalfield, bar one, where the miners have been allowed the opportunity of a ballot to express their views they have decided to carry on working. Even in the pit at Bolsover, for which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke earlier today, the miners are working, having expressed their wish and determination to work.
Even at this stage the vast bulk of miners in the whole British coalfield wish to work. I call in aid facts to support that. First, no one can possibly doubt for a moment that if Mr. Scargill thought that the miners, given the chance, would vote to strike, he would already have called a ballot. He is far too smart an operator to have missed that opportunity if it was open to him. He knows that he has a very bad hand to play and that if he played that hand he would lose. That is why he has not called a ballot. That is why he has rejected the democratic approach and sought the approach of the thug and the bully boy.
I am not talking now just about picketing. We heard a lot about picketing in the early part of the dispute but, by and large, that problem has been resolved. There are not many miners who wish to go into the coal mine who are prevented now by picketing. For that, much praise is due

to the police who have played their hand very well. They have policed sensitively and carefully and have done their first duty, which is to uphold the law.
I am complaining not about picketing but about the intimidation and thuggery behind the scenes. There is an appalling degree of that in the Warwickshire coalfield. There have been stories reminiscent of Berlin in the 1930s of people being followed to their homes, of crosses being painted on the doors of miners who are working, of threats to them—"We will get you when it is all over." There are threats not just to the miners but to their wives. There are obscene and threatening phone calls, bricks thrown through windows, doors beaten down and paint thrown upon cats. One of my constituents has a son on a kidney machine. Threats were made to that miner that just because he was exercising his right to go to work the dialysis machine would be damaged.

Mr. Nellist: That was not done by striking miners, and the hon. Member knows that.

Mr. Maude: What I am prepared to say is that I am sure it was not done by Warwickshire miners.

Mr. Nellist: That was not done by striking miners.

Mr. Maude: It may have been done by people brought in by Mr. Scargill's thugs. It was the most appalling display. I know that the whole House will join me in condemning that appalling act. That is only one example of the history of intimidation and thuggery.
That is the only weapon Mr. Scargill had. He knows that it is not a miners' dispute. It is not even an NUM dispute; it is a Scargill dispute. If he had the cards in his hand to play he would have played them by now. However, he knows that this is the last throw of the dice for him. He has nothing more to play for after this.
The hon. Member for Leigh referred to the chairman of the coal board, Mr. MacGregor. He talked as though what was happening was something new that had not been done before. That is not so, as the hon. Member knows. Indeed, what Mr. MacGregor and the coal board proposed for this year was nothing more than was done last year. It is proposed that 20 pits should be closed and 20,000 jobs lost, not through compulsory redundancy by people being sacked but by voluntary redundancy with people willingly accepting generous redundancy payments to leave the industry.
When he opened the debate the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) referred to his three aims for the industry—expansion, modernisation and investment. I want to deal with those in reverse order. Since the "Plan for Coal", the agreed amount of investment by the Government in the industry has been exceeded. At today's prices it has been exceeded by £650 million. The bulk of that has been since 1979 in the currency of this Government. Therefore, let no one complain about lack of investment in the industry. Investment there has been.
The complaints one hears are not that there has been too little investment but, if anything, too much. The hon. Member for Leigh criticised the Government for not having invested in new pits. He asked how much of the money had gone into new pits and how many pits had been sunk since 1979. It is interesting to compare his remarks with those of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends who complained that too much money had been put into new


pits and not enough into existing pits. There is a little sorting out to be done by the Opposition before they start criticising us for lack of investment in the industry.
The second aim of the right hon. Member for Salford, East was modernisation. How we need that in the industry. The last thing I want, as a Member representing a mining constituency, is for my constituents to have to continue to serve in Victorian and archaic conditions. We want a modernised industry.
Expansion was the third aim of the right hon. Member. Again, how we should like to see that. He wants expansion of the industry by digging coal that no one wants to buy. One begins to wonder when the lesson will be learnt that there is only a point in digging coal out of the ground, in manufacturing goods or in providing any sort of goods or service when somebody wants to buy the product. It is worse than useless to manufacture a product or to dig it out of the ground when all that will be done with it is to allow it to sit on the surface. That is destructive. I want to see properly organised expansion, expansion through demand. There is only one way to get a demand for coal—by providing the coal at a price at which people want to buy it. If any Opposition Member really believes that a massive disruption of supplies is doing a service to the industry to win markets and customers he wants his head testing. I want to see expansion. I want a Government who are committed to the expansion of the industry, but that must be expansion through investment in profitable and productive coalfields. Madness lies in any other way.
Labour Members have failed to recognise that the miners agree generally with the Government. They do not agree with the arguments that have been advanced by Labour Members. By and large, they agree that real security for the future lies in developing the profitable and productive coalfields. It is perhaps a forlorn hope, but when we divide this evening I hope that Labour Members will reflect on the wording of the Opposition's motion. I believe that the motion would take us backwards, and I want to see the industry go forward. I know that it has a future, and I want to see it going forward as soon as possible.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), as you have asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I crave the indulgence of the House briefly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her maiden speech. My hon. Friend succeeded Joan Evans, who was a good friend of mine. His death was a sad loss to the Co-operative party. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being elected to this place. I say that with no disrepect to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who also made his maiden speech earlier this evening.
We meet today in rather peculiar circumstances. In effect, we are the shareholders of the mining industry, for we represent the nation. The speeches of some Conservative Members have suggested that we are discussing a clapped-out industry that has no future— [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members have only recently entered the Chamber, but they are bellyaching already. I agree with the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North that the industry has a future, but we are the

custodians of that future. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to intervene over Mr. MacGregor as the representative of the executive, as it were.
The Opposition do not complain about intervention in industry, but we are entitled to question the nature and purpose of intervention. The most disastrous intervention in the mining industry was the appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor. Anyone who thinks differently from that has not met him or has not been involved with him in an argument and discussion about a pit in his constituency. I have met Mr. MacGregor twice to discuss a pit in my constituency with my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
When meetings of that sort take place, Mr. MacGregor says, "Listen, boy, we are running a decentralised industry here and it is management-down-the-line responsibility."' When he is questioned further about the effect of that form of management on Bogside he washes his hands of the matter and says, "That is a matter for the management and the National Union of Mineworkers and not for politicians." I have a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), which is graphic and significant when set against the reports that have appeared in the press over recent days. In his letter the Minister states:
It would be quite inappropriate for the Government to intervene in these arrangements.
However, we know that the Government have intervened in the dispute. The Government's backstairs intervention had an effect on the attitude of management right down the line. Management in various areas is trying to establish a position whereby it will teach the men a lesson. That is reflected in threatened pit closures and how management chooses to colour the situation, real or imagined, in the pits.
I have checked on pits in my constituency that are supposed to be under threat because they are dangerous. According to the press, the Cornrie pit is in danger of being closed. I have spoken to my NUM colleagues and they have said, "Dick, the pit is sweet." Miners will understand what is meant by that term. I have checked on the Castlehill pit and the same description applies. The same applies to Solsgirth pit. The attitude of management is to teach the men a lesson and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to bring that to a halt. That attitude will not produce cohesion in the industry.
We are fighting for the survival of communities, and that has been graphically illustrated in the demonstration in London today. I do not expect Conservative Members to appreciate that, but I expect them to try to understand that if a pit closes, especially in the present economic climate, there is no other work.

Mr. Maude: rose——

Mr. Douglas: No, I shall not give way, as time is limited.
If a pit closes, there is no other work. Some of the young men I met when I was elected in 1979 have not worked since that general election. We are producing a generation whose members will be unemployed for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not appreciate that.
Mining communities are close knit and it is wrong for Conservative Members to say that Labour Members are prepared to condone violence on the part of miners. Our people have a vested interest in good order, especially in close-knit communities. The Scottish experience is that


there is concerted action by the police. I witnessed scenes on the streets of London today that I did not imagine would ever take place. I saw a police officer kick a lady. Why was she kicked? She was kicked because she was collecting for the miners. The officer said, "No street collections here." I would not have believed that that could happen.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility to intervene. What are his intentions? Does he intend to leave the dispute to management and the NUM and to let them try to resolve it, or will he intervene in the national interest? That is a straight question and I hope that it will receive a straight answer when the Minister replies.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): rose——

Mr. Douglas: No, I shall not give way. I gave an undertaking that I would be brief and I want to keep to it. I have asked the Secretary of State a straight question. How does he and the Government see the national interest in terms of resolving the dispute?

Mr. Peter Walker: We have intervened by providing the money to introduce the largest ever capital investment programme in the mining industry, a decent pay agreement and not one compulsory redundancy. That is a considerable intervention.

Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State should know better than to think that that will bring about a resolution of the dispute. To play the same record from the Government Front Bench, or to allow the needle to become stuck in the same groove and to express the same view, will not resolve the dispute. Any resolution will demand initiative. As the custodian of the nation's interests, the House should be given an answer at the conclusion of the debate. Is it the Minister's intention to allow the dispute to continue for months and months at a ruinous cost to all concerned, or will he do what has been done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and see the two parties either individually or collectively to try to bring about a resolution? The nation demands an answer. We cannot abrogate our responsibility, although the Secretary of State might want to do so.
At the end of the debate, the nation will want to know how we treated the mining industry, which has a future. It may be that the nation will call us all to account when the next general election takes place although I hope that the dispute will not continue for that long. The Secretary of State should respond positively tonight.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said that Conservative Members did not appreciate the effect of the reduction in coal capacity asked for by the Coal Board on those communities that will be affected and on the loss of jobs. Hon. Members who represent areas of high unemployment appreciate the problems that may have to be faced. Therefore, to bring the matter down to the level of fighting a class war in this Chamber or outside it, does neither the dispute nor the industry any good.
Three important matters arise from the dispute, and all miners should take notice of them. First, it is a great industry with a future, but much of what is going on will

do that future no good. There is the question of balance. If you are going to buy coal and build your industrial future on it——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member please refrain from bringing me into his speech?

Mr. Hind: I apologise, Sir. A consumer or purchaser is entitled to request that the National Union of Mineworkers follows the normal rules for industrial relations and seeks the support of its members before going on strike, and then follows the normal channels for negotiations. If the consumer is given that security, he will buy the product, which in this case is coal. Mr. Arthur Scargill must ask himself what he has to fear by taking the matter to a ballot of his union's members, if his case is just.

Mr. Nellist: What about the Greater London council?

Mr. Hind: If Arthur Scargill fears democracy, he is leading his members up the garden path. That he will not call a ballot shows clearly that he is fighting a battle with the Government. He is not interested in long-term benefits for the members, whom he claims to represent. He should seek benefits for them and not a personal political gain from attempting to bring down the Conservative Government, which was properly elected through the ballot box on 9 June 1983.
The miners must put their house in order and bring that man to book. If there is no ballot and the miners return to work in dribs and drabs, they will be a demoralised work force with little hope for the future. That may result in 12 months time in our debating the next miners' strike. Some Conservative Members believe that unless the dispute is settled sensibly by negotiation and unless the NUM executive are realistic, the problem will remain a festering sore for many years to come.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West said that we were the shareholders of the company. If the miners believe that they will win the support of the general public by offending the rule of law, as they have done at Orgreave, and by standing outside coking plants with 6,000 pickets, they believe in the rule of the mob and not the rule of law and are leading themselves in the wrong direction. They are convincing themselves that they are right and are shutting their minds to right-thinking people who want to run society in an orderly manner. There is a correct way of proceeding, negotiating and picketing.
The third and most important factor is energy. I, with many other hon. Members, represent a manufacturing constituency. We are the consumers of the energy that comes, via the CEGB, from the pits. We are asking for a reduction of 4 million tonnes of coal, which represents less than 4 per cent. of total production. That will not close the' coal industry by any stretch of the imagination. We are simply asking the industry to cut the areas of expensive production and to bring prices to a more realistic level that is comparable with prices in other parts of the world. Can the mining industry, which produces coal at £46 a tonne, compete with American coal at between £23 to £27 a tonne, or with some European coal at between £16 and £19 a tonne?
If energy costs too much, manufacturers will have to cut employment opportunities. In the long term the miners will not do themselves a favour by pursuing the dispute and ignoring the logical economic arguments that cannot


be denied if one examines the statistics. We cannot produce coal at £78 a tonne and expect the country to continue to write a blank cheque for the mining industry. I sympathise with Opposition Members, but we cannot allow one industry to have a blank cheque written by the taxpayer if that means that the other industries in which our constituents work will suffer. The House must consider the more than 20 million people who are working and must balance against that figure the 40,000 miners who are in danger of losing their jobs during the next two years.
The miners should also compare the amount of investment in Britain with that in France and Germany. The British mining industry has had unprecedented investment and Government after Government have shown their willingness to invest in, and expand, new, profitable pits. We want a modern industry producing low-priced coal, which will benefit us all. The miners should know that with the dispute they are upsetting the future of their industry and putting off those who might have changed from oil-fired to coal-fired power. They should also consider the coal board's programme to assist them to set up in business and the marvellous terms for redundancy — [Interruption.] Opposition Members should talk to people in other industries who would give their eye-teeth to have similar redundancy payments. The miners should know that the opportunities being given to them are not being given to employees of other industries. They should realise that if they go back to work and sensibly ignore that man Scargill, who is interested only in his personal ambition, they will do well for their industry.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Since I became a Member 14 years ago, there have been three strikes in the coal industry. History clearly demonstrates that the 1972 strike could easily have been avoided. It is obvious that the 1974 strike could easily have been avoided. A consideration of the 1984 coal strike will, I believe, bring the same conclusion.
The 1984 strike could easily have been avoided without any settlement that could be described as one-sided, but there is another difference between the 1972 and 1974 strikes and this one. The 1972 and 1974 strikes had an element of good humour. There is little good humour about this strike, because this dispute is accompanied by an appalling level of hardship.
That fact was presented to me the other day by a junior schoolmaster in my constituency. He told me that he was walking along a corridor of his school when he saw a little eight-year old boy. He asked him how he was. The little boy said—(Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. The scars that result from this type of experience will bring bitterness and grief to another generation of Conservatives. The boy said that he was not pleased with life because his mother was always crying.
I shall not give the name of the headmaster, because the Secretary of State for Education and Science wants to get rid of headmasters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, he does. There are 10,000 people waiting to take their jobs.
The Rawmarsh headmaster felt that he had to tell me that story because it was important. Labour Members are in the House of Commons because of the experience of their parents. One should have thought that people could have learnt a little more 30 or 40 years later. It is no

wonder that, when the Government seek to inflict the most desperate hardship and compound it by taxing generosity and the sense of responsibility in the community, there is a degree of bitterness because they have not pursued the important matters.
The Secretary of State is aware that I have sought to encourage a settlement. I have urged him to take action to avoid the dispute. In December, I warned him about the fragility of industrial relations, and he has ignored that warning. The right hon. Gentleman talked about investment. I referred him to the position at Cortonwood. The miners will take his comments on investment with a pinch of salt. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the amount of investment in the industry. There was investment at Cortonwood, with refurbished pithead baths, a brand new methane unit, and the drive to a new area of coal, which would have seen a new pitface in operation within four days of the Coal Board deciding to close Cortonwood. That pit will close in five weeks time. Enormous sums were invested at Cortonwood. Any miner at Cortonwood will take any comment by the Secretary of State with a pinch of salt. They need a greater sense of security.
At the beginning of the dispute—my constituents are well aware of this, if other hon. Members are not—I urged miners not to be involved in violence, because I could see what the national media would do with that. There has been violence, despite the fact that the vast majority of the members of the NUM have had nothing to do with violent actions. Responsible members of the NUM who share my anxiety have complained that the police have been turned into a national party political force in a way that is bound to bring grave danger to the community for a long time. If the Secretary of State wishes to contribute to peace in the mining industry, he should ask the Home Secretary when he will reply to letters containing detailed evidence of individual activity by police officers—it is only a minority of police officers —which does not justify the Home Secretary describing every miner's complaint as a lie or a smear.
I have sent statements to the Home Secretary from members of the NUM with whom I live and whom I believe and trust. They are deeply concerned about what they have seen. After nine or 10 weeks of such a situation, it is time that we had a reply. I have asked the Home Secretary to give me a guarantee, not that he will take action now, but that he will agree to an investigation when the dispute is eventually over.
The Secretary of State has told the House of confidence in the mining industry and the vast amount of money that the Government have invested in it. If the Secretary of State has taken an interest—I believe that he has, even though it be a quiet interest—he will be aware that vast: sums of money have been invested in many scores of colleries. He will know, far more than any Opposition Member, how much damage has occurred in colleries since the dispute began and how many scores of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been put at risk, and perhaps how much taxpayers' money has been put at risk at individual colleries. If he is the custodian of the nation's investment, as a responsible custodian he would take some note of the consequences of his inaction upon the taxpayers' investment.
There are rumours in the industry that it is not old., losing pits which are now at risk; it is vast modern ones upon which the country will have to depend for the next


30, 40 or 50 years. Whether they be loss-making pits, or profitable ones, most of our colleries are in areas where unemployment is at a deplorable and obscene level. In my constituency, 85 per cent. of the school leavers could not get a job last year. The strike and the effect of the Government's policy on the coal board will make that figure at least 90 per cent. this year.
Miners are right to be worried about their position and whether they should snatch the money that the Secretary of State is dangling before them and thus ensure that their children or their neighbours' children never obtain work. The Secretary of State ignores that aspect of the matter. It may be difficult for Conservative Members to begin to understand those human factors but somehow within the next few days they must begin to penetrate the consciousness of the Secretary of State.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to speak, may I say to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that it has been drawn to my attention that in the concluding part of his speech he said:
They—
that is, hon. Members—
have no comprehension of how that bitterness will be increased when they read how the Prime Minister has lied to the House." 
I know that that was probably said in the heat of the moment, but I ask the right hon. Member to withdraw that phrase.

Mr. Foot: I expressed myself in extremely strong terms because I believe that it is deeply offensive to the House that the Prime Minister has not come here to answer the charges about how the House and the country have been misled by her statement on the matter. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, if you tell me that I expressed those strong feelings in unparliamentary language, I withdraw it on your instructions.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The House would wish me to compliment the two maiden speakers. I should probably refer to the Conservative Member first. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) paid a right and generous tribute to his predecessor. The hon. Member showed that he will be articulate enough to espouse his party's case, and no doubt we shall hear more from him. It is, of course, another pleasure for me to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her maiden speech. Coming from the Rhondda valley, in south Wales, she made it clear that the miners and the people of that area have found a champion to espouse their cause. I am sure that we shall hear more from her. We were pleased that she was so articulate, and I compliment her on behalf of the House.
I have had the great privilege and pleasure of occupying these Benches now for about 12 years, and to speak on behalf of my party from the Front Bench. During those 12 years I have never listened to a debate of such major importance and significance in which senior Members were so noticeable by their absence. I think it is rather strange that that should happen. One wonders what is happening on the Government Benches for this to be so.
In response to the debate, I think it has to be recorded that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who got the present talks going between the National Union of Mineworkers and the NCB with a view to settling the coal dispute. It is unpredecented that the initiative in such a major crisis affecting our country should have to come from the Opposition.
My right hon. Friend talked to both sides in the dispute. In the debate, Opposition Members—and any other hon. Members can join us—are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he talked to both sides involved in the dispute. Indeed, we are entitled to ask what initiatives, if any, he has helped, or tried to help, to resolve the dispute. I hope that we are not going to be told that the Government's policy is one of non-intervention. How is it possible to compromise apparent neutrality by talking to both sides involved in the dispute in this serious crisis that affects the nation? I say this "apparent neutrality", for that cover has already been blown for the Government, because they have been in contact throughout the dispute with the National Coal Board, and, I know, with Mr. Ian MacGregor.
It is essential tonight that the House be told what the Government strategy has amounted to. I submit that it can be described in two aspects. First, it has been a response for public presentation or public consumption. The policy of non-intervention has been trailered in the House, and trailered across the media. That is the word that has tripped gaily from the lips of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Anyone who has some knowledge of the machinery of Government knows that the meaning of non-intervention is to conspire to bring about the defeat of the miners. I suggest that the word non-intervention is now a bit word-soiled. I know that my old mother of 85 years, who was secretary of the Spanish civil war relief fund, remembers the policy of Tory Government non-intervention.
The second aspect of this so-called strategy by the Government is allied to the first. It is a political strategy to starve the miners and their families into submission.
I have news for the Government. They will not succeed in starving the miners and their families into submission. As a strategy, it is bound to fail because in this debate we are appealing to the fair-mindedness of the British people, and they will not allow any Government to starve any section of industrial workers into submission. If that is Government strategy, they will succeed only in escalating the dispute because the trade union movement will not allow the miners to be starved into submission.
Every Government and every Head of Government has a responsibility to bear in an industrial dispute of this magnitude, and it is clear that the Prime Minister can be identified with the origins of this one. I refer to the appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB. The Prime Minister cannot wriggle out of that responsibility, for he was her appointment. It was the single most provocative political act of 1984.
It was made clear by the press corps at 10 Downing street that the right hon. Lady was full of admiration for Mr. MacGregor and was proud of what he had done to the steel industry, in which he was detested by management and workers alike. Based on that, there can be little doubt that his terms of reference were seen by the people working in the coal industry as an instruction that he should do to coal what he had done to steel.
It added insult to injury when we were informed at the time of the appointment of Mr. MacGregor that a fee of £1·5 million had to be paid to his firm in America for his secondment. It was a disgrace when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared on television and said that it was cheap at the price. Later in my remarks I shall show how cheap it has been.
We are entitled tonight to question the advice that must have been given by Mr. MacGregor at the outset of this dispute, which was to the effect that it would have little effect on the economy of the country because of the high stocks of coal. A servile and captive media also played the tune that the high stocks of coal would cause little or insignificant damage to the economy. In view of some of the speeches that have been made in this debate about the economic damage that the dispute has caused, that takes the biscuit.
It reeked of complacency when the chairman of the NCB a few weeks ago, from the cosy comfort of NCB headquarters in Hobart house, described the miners' dispute as
a little temporary difficulty outside of town".
I do not know whether it will be, or will be considered to have been, temporary, but it is certainly not a little difficulty. It is a whopper of an industrial dispute.
There is a growing realisation among the electors as a result of the dispute how much they have been diddled by the Conservatives, who campaigned on the basis that they would safeguard the public purse.
Your money is safe in our hands
was the slogan of every Tory politican at two general elections.
Unemployment and the Falklands war have been debated at great length because of their enormous expense, which is still growing. The miners' dispute looks like becoming a strong competitor in the expenditure of the nation. No wonder that the dispute is being captioned in every mining and industrial area as the Prime Minister's folly. There is good reason for it being named as such. If one adds it to the expenditure in the Falklands and the colossal cost of sustaining unemployment, we undoubtedly have the most irresponsible and extravagantly expensive Government ever in peacetime.
The miners' dispute is probably costing twice as much as the Falklands war. I restrain myself with great difficulty from going into details about — [Laughter.] —Conservative Members should not laugh, because there is nothing to laugh about—the misery and suffering that miners and their families are undergoing. That is nothing to laugh about. The dispute must be costing nearly £2·5 billion. That is why I refer to it as one of the most serious crises that we are undergoing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said, we have the largest trade deficit ever in our balance of trade. The value of stocks and shares has been chopped since the start of the dispute, although not many miners will suffer from that.'
There is another factor, which is again no joke—it is serious. I calculate that about 700 places are standing idle all over the British coal fields. If this dispute lasts much longer, I estimate that about £1·75 billion worth of equipment underground will be at risk, but in Mr. MacGregor's words, this is a "little temporary difficulty".
I put it to the House in all seriousness that, because of his monumental incompetence, Mr. MacGregor should be

sacked immediately. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And the Prime Minister."] Yes. There will be a little more difficulty about that, but it will come.
As Mr. MacGregoror has withdrawn from the negotiations, he may wish to do the honourable thing and resign. The Minister's cover has been blown, and he must reply, as must the Minister of State, Department of Employment, to the statement in the Daily Mirror, which was somewhat echoed in The Observer last Sunday, that the Government are insisting that there have to be no agreed terms that could be interpreted as a victory for the NUM president. We are entitled to know whether those are the terms of negotiation given to the negotiators of the NCB. If that is so, that is the road to hell and disaster, and we will not bring this dispute to an end.
The miners' case in this dispute is overwhelming. The speeches of some Conservative Members illustrate that the miners' case has not been presented fairly. It has been polluted by picket line scenes on television and in the media. Never in living memory in an industrial dispute have the police been used as they have been today.
The second betrayal has been conservative talk of the gladiatorial battle between Mr. Ian MacGregor and Mr. Arthur Scargill. That certainly pollutes the argument. The issue is simple. The NCB made a unilateral declaration to get rid of 20 pits and 20,000 men this year. Mr. MacGregor said that it was based on an over-production of 4 million tonnes of coal. If there is any doubt about "Plan for Coal", that unilateral declaration was the first shot fired in the betrayal of that plan. The way that it has been presented to the public—as though the NCB had to take action to slim down the manpower and close the pits—ignores the fact that during the past three financial years, through pit closures, exhaustion and other factors, the coal industry has shed 43,000 men.
In my native land of Scotland, there have been six pit closures during the past 15 to 16 months, and two of them are the subject of dispute. We have lost 3,000 jobs, yet our unemployment rate is an absolute scandal. In some areas it is 70 or 80 per cent. among the youth.
The case for development of coal is overwhelming. It is the only fossil fuel that we have in abundance. There is sufficient coal to last us throughout the next century. As, has been pointed out by some of my hon. Friends, oil and gas are wasted assets. Some sources of energy will. disappear before the century is out. We know that by 1988 oil from the North sea will begin to dwindle. We also know that when we talk about coal and its future, we are talking about the industrial strategic importance of the nation. It is strategically important that we have a strong, thriving coal industry because of the problems in the Middle East, which is a cauldron of political uncertainty. If we contract our coal industry, we shall place the nation in industrial peril. We will need to make oil from coal.
The Secretary of State spoke of investment in coal. The House must be aware that the Government have not sunk one pit since they were elected in 1979. That is a betrayal of "Plan for Coal". As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, if we look at global investment we see that the Government are operating a policy of contracting the coal fields in Durham, Scotland, Northumberland and south Wales. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that 81 per cent. of investment goes into Nottingham, the Midlands and Yorkshire. The other areas are left with 19 per cent. If that is not a policy of contraction, I do not know what is. We need new pits. Unless we sink new pits,


the industry will contract. The country is rich in coal, and we know the areas with potential for new pits—Wales, Scotland and so on.
It is not the miners who are on the rack tonight—it is the Government. That is why we will go into the Division Lobby and vote against the Government. Their policy is not just industrial suicide for the mining industry; it is industrial suicide for the nation as a whole.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): First, it is my pleasant duty to join those who have welcomed and congratulated the two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her speech and I share entirely her view of her late predecessor, loan Evans, who was much liked and admired by many Conservative Members. We wish the hon. Lady well in her time here. I am sorry that Cynon Valley seems to have been taken off the map temporarily, but it looks as though she will be putting it back. I very much welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and congratulate him, not just on the quality of his maiden speech but on his kind words, which we all endorse, about our late colleague, Hugh Fraser. We see in our new colleague the sense of style and dedication that characterised his predecessor and welcome him with the best of good wishes for the future.
Today's debate has had a most extraordinary character, not least because there are now a substantial number of Tory Members directly representing miners and there are more Tory Members than Opposition Members present for the winding-up speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), for Stafford (Mr. Cash), for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) have all contributed to the debate with personal knowledge of their constituencies in which miners are represented. That is a major change which has overcome the House since the last general election.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister realise that those very miners have said today that they are now more determined then ever as a result of the Prime Minister misleading the House and deceiving them? Is he aware that he and the Secretary of State have completely lost the miners' trust and are regarded as bearing the same responsibility as the Prime Minister because they supported her in deceiving the House, which is what miners would call lying——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that that word should not be used—not even by attribution.

Mr. Lofthouse: In that case, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Shaw: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has to get his point in, but the incredible thing about the debate has been the silence of the Opposition about the 45,000 miners who are at work. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to the kind of intervention to which he was used to at the Department of Employment. He would have difficulty now to know what to do with a trade union of this nature, using its rule book

as it has, deciding not to have a national ballot, and with an enormous split within it. That is a major difference today, whatever may have been the case in the past.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) wound up in his characteristically generous style and we welcome him back to the Dispatch Box, but the Opposition cannot have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman asked when any new pits had been sunk. He seemed to have forgotten Asfordby, but as that pit is in Leicestershire he probably does not know of it. He called for new pits to be sunk, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Orme) said in opening that there was far too much investment in new pits and wanted investment in existing pits. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend clearly need to get together. I ask myself whether we should intervene in getting them together. Perhaps I could write a letter to the hon. Gentleman with a little footnote that he might care to carry out. We shall get the two sides together.
I can give the right hon. Gentleman the answer to his question. In terms of investment in existing mines, since the Government came to power in 1979 the figures for projects worth more than £500,000—and the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that those are substantial projects—are as follows: in 1978–79, £136 million; in 1979–80, £174 million; in 1980–81, £212 million, and in 1981–82, £229 million. There is no shred of evidence to suggest that investment policy has been biased towards excluding the development of existing pits. Far from it.

Mr. Orme: When the hon. Gentleman looks at the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that I welcomed the investment in new pits, and said that there should be more investment in the older pits too.

Mr. Shaw: The record will be studied. My hon. Friends will draw their conclusions and the right hon. Gentleman will draw his conclusions.
Many points have been made in the debate. I respect the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood voiced the interests and importance of the Nottingham miners. He rightly drew attention to the massive intimidation that there has been in his constituency. To his credit, my hon. Friend says that the future is all that matters. The miners of Nottinghamshire are just as dedicated to that future as anyone else. They are demonstrating their faith in the future.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that 87 per cent. of the miners are on strike. That is just not so. One can give or take a few percentage points at around 75 per cent., but certainly 25 to 27 per cent. of the miners are currently working, and I trust that that number will continue to grow, as it is steadily growing each day.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about ratting on "Plan for Coal" by abandoning the volume target. He should recall his own Green Paper on energy. The volume target was not accepted by the Government of the day, and it was deleted from the eventual proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we were penalising the men on strike by withholding redundancy payments. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government and the NCB are determined to ensure that men who take redundancy and who have agreed terms of redundancy will receive their redundancy pay. The arrangement that was announced last week, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, is that a change will be


made to enable the recovery to take place. That should ensure that the vast majority of the moneys outstanding will be paid out under the redundancy arrangements that have been made. We intend to see that that is done at the earliest convenient opportunity.
There was a magnificent demonstration of spontaneous combustion from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who was in very good form. He pirouetted gracefully on most of the aspects of the dispute. He prayed in aid the Ayatollah Khomeini — a new diversionary tactic for him. He did his standard stuff, and it was of the best quality. We wish him well in his discussions with the two or three people who share his points of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), rightly drew our attention to the problems of the steel industry and the way in which the industry was being treated by the miners. It would be more than a tragedy, it would be an economic disaster of the first magnitude, if such action were taken in relation to this dispute. We wish it well in sorting that problem out as well.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) was concerned to keep every pit open, and at full production. If that happened, because of the average price of British mined coal, there would be nothing but increases in stocks and lower sales. At the heart of the dispute and the debate lies one theme—how the mining industry can find a stable and viable future. Closures have always been part of the discussions on mining policy. The documentation is clear on that. We find that in the earliest documents of the Government in 1974, when examining "Plan for Coal" in its coal industry examination committee. Time and again that committee returned to the point. It said that the transformed outlook for coal was dependent on the fact that costs should remain competitive overall and that those costs must bear in mind the cost of uneconomic pits where they exist. The energy policy document of 1978 said on the key issue of productivity:
In order to make the most effective contribution to meeting demand for energy the coal industry will need to operate at the highest possible level of production and lowest level of cost. The cost of coal production from existing capacity is rising as … operations take place further from the pit bottom.
Cost is at the heart of the discussion about the problem in the coal industry. It came into most prominent relief in the exposure given to it by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of 1983. I appreciate that that report is not always the best reading for Opposition Members so I shall refer to the Energy Select Committee's report of December 1982. It examined the problem of pit closures and took evidence from the NUM and others. In conclusion (xv) it said:
There can be no doubt that the very high cost of the Board's marginal and at least in the short term, surplus capacity unfavourably distorts the coal industry's financial position, and imposes a considerable drain upon public funds.
Conclusion (xvii) says:
In sum, to judge by their evidence to us, the NUM appear to believe that, in order to maintain employment in mining, the industry should be encouraged and financed to produce as much coal as it possibly can, and that the country somehow has an obligation to find ways of consuming it.
It was therefore inevitable that the Committee should conclude in conclusion (xix) as follows:
The Board must take steps to bring its capacity more into line with existing and expected demands for coal.

That is what the problem is all about. The problem has been deflected for month after month and for year after year.

Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for enabling me to say what the dispute is about. It is about job opportunities and the loss of them. Will he give us an assurance that there will be job opportunities in the mining industry for school leavers and unemployed people in mining areas? That is what the dispute is about and that is the assurance that we want.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the prospects for job opportunities in an industry that cannot sell its product are virtually zero. Restructuring is therefore essential for such prospects. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the board is able to put the industry on a viable and sound footing, there will undoubtedly be jobs for youngsters. That is the board's intention.
I accept entirely that severe community hardships are being suffered in areas where pits are closed. The Government have taken some steps in relation to RMPS payments, which I recognise that some may not regard as sufficient. However, those steps are immensely greater than any taken by the previous Labour Government. In addition, the board has announced—I trust that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) knows—that an NCB enterprise company will be set up with the specific task of aiding and assisting in the development of businesses in areas where closures take place and helping to bring together the various services that can help create new jobs. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether that measure had Government support and I said that the Government fully support the NCB in what it does. He will be aware that the board will be making the initial investment but he will equally be aware that every penny that the board currently spends comes from the Government's account.

Mr. Douglas: We have been treated to the Government's view on a range of aspects but we have not been given what many have asked for — the Government's view on how the present dispute will be resolved. Can we have that?

Mr. Shaw: Negotiations are now taking place between the NCB and the NUM. I welcome the meetings between the right hon. Member for Salford, East, the chairman of the NCB and the leader of the NUM. I am not so certain that it is because of the sugar plum fairy that they are taking place. Those negotiations have come about after many months of waiting for the NUM and we wish those negotiations success. The hon. Gentleman would not expect any further comment a s the negotiations will be resumed tomorrow.
The future of the coal industry——

Mr. Mason: rose——

Mr. Shaw: I have given way enough.

Mr. Mason: rose——

Mr. Shaw: No. I shall not give way.

Mr. Mason: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Mason: rose——

Mr. Shaw: I shall now give way.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there has been a conspiratorial alliance of secrecy by Ministers and Government Departments while the Prime Minister has been deliberately misleading the House week after week, denying involvement by the Government and Ministers while at the same time the Government have been manipulating unions to isolate the NUM. Why has the Department of Energy, which must have known more about the matter than any other Department, gone along with the Prime Minister in misleading the nation, being guilty of terminological inexactitudes——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shaw: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should abuse an intervention in that way with all the experience that he commands. It was made abundantly clear at Question Time today how that matter should be viewed.
In conclusion, let me establish beyond doubt that the Government have provided the vast resources necessary to enable the industry to have a viable and substantial future. Within the industry at present there is a major dispute in that a large proportion of the NUM is working and a larger proportion is on strike. It is absolutely absurd for hon. Members to suggest that that is a situation that can be solved by any means other than by the union itself. It is absurd that no ballot has taken place.
Finally, in so far as the country can have a secure and viable coal industry, it will be because the price of coal fits the market. That is the way in which we look forward to a strong and viable future for the industry.
I call upon my hon. Friends to support our amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the question:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 272.

Division No. 357]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clay, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Clwyd, Ms Ann


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Barnett, Guy
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart
Cowans, Harry


Benn, Tony
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Craigen, J. M.


Bermingham, Gerald
Crowther, Stan


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Anthony
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dixon, Donald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Douglas, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Dubs, Alfred


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Eadie, Alex


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Ian
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellis, Raymond


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Harry





Fatchett, Derek
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Forrester, John
Parry, Robert


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Pike, Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman
Randall, Stuart


Golding, John
Redmond, M.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Robertson, George


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rogers, Allan


Haynes, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Heffer, Eric S.
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ryman, John


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Janner, Hon Greville
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stott, Roger


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Leighton, Ronald
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Loyden, Edward
Torney, Tom


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wareing, Robert


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Weetch, Ken


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, James


McNamara, Kevin
Wigley, Dafydd


McTaggart, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Madden, Max
Wilson, Gordon


Marek, Dr John
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Woodall, Alec


Martin, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John Home Robertson.


Meacher, Michael



Michie, William



NOES


Adley, Robert
Benyon, William


Aitken, Jonathan
Berry, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Keith


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ashby, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brinton, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Beggs, Roy
Bruinvels, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Bryan, Sir Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.






Buck, Sir Antony
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hooson, Tom


Cash, William
Hordern, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, John
Irving, Charles


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cranborne, Viscount
Jessel, Toby


Critchley, Julian
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Robert
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawler, Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, John
Lester, Jim


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forman, Nigel
McCusker, Harold


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Maclean, David John


Forth, Eric
Maginnis, Ken


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Major, John


Fox, Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Galley, Roy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moate, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Greenway, Harry
Mudd, David


Gregory, Conal
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, J.


Ground, Patrick
Norris, Steven


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Gummer, John Selwyn
Oppenheim, Philip


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Osborn, Sir John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Parris, Matthew


Harris, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Harvey, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Haselhurst, Alan
Pawsey, James


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Porter, Barry


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hayes, J.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayhoe, Barney
Powley, John


Hayward, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heddle, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Rathbone, Tim


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Hickmet, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hicks, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey





Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Terlezki, Stefan


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Ryder, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shelton, William (Streatham)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waddington, David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Silvester, Fred
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Spencer, Derek
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watson, John


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stanley, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, J.



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Questions, That the proposed words be three added, put forthwith pursuant to standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments).

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 178.

Division No. 358]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brinton, Tim


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brooke, Hon Peter


Amess, David
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Ancram, Michael
Bruinvels, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Bryan, Sir Paul


Ashby, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Aspinwall, Jack
Buck, Sir Antony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Churchill, W. S.


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Benyon, William
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Best, Keith
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina






Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Knight,.Gregory (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawler, Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, John
Lester, Jim


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forman, Nigel
McCusker, Harold


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Maclean, David John


Forth, Eric
Maginnis, Ken


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Major, John


Fox, Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Galley, Roy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moate, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Greenway, Harry
Mudd, David


Gregory, Conal
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Neubert, Michael


Grist, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Nicholson, J.


Grylls, Michael
Norris, Steven


Gummer, John Selwyn
Onslow, Cranley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Oppenheim, Philip


Hampson, Dr Keith
Osborn, Sir John


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Harris, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Harvey, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hayes, J.
Porter, Barry


Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powley, John


Heddle, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Henderson, Barry
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hickmet, Richard
Rathbone, Tim


Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hind, Kenneth
Rifkind, Malcolm


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Holt, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hooson, Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hordern, Peter
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Howard, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Ryder, Richard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Irving, Charles
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jackson, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Michael


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Silvester, Fred


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.





Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trippier, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Hon Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Spencer, Derek
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waddington, David


Squire, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stanley, John
Walden, George


Steen, Anthony
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Watson, John


Stokes, John
Watts, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sumberg, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Tapsell, Peter
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Raymond


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Terlezki, Stefan
Winterton, Nicholas


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Tracey, Richard



NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dormand, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas, Dick


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dubs, Alfred


Barnett, Guy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Eadie, Alex


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Tony
Ellis, Raymond


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Anthony
Faulds, Andrew


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foster, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godman, Dr Norman


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Clay, Robert
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cohen, Harry
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbett, Robin
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cowans, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hoyle, Douglas


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)






Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Redmond, M.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Janner, Hon Greville
Richardson, Ms Jo


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robertson, George


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Lamond, James
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ronald
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryman, John


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Loyden, Edward
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampfn NE)


McKelvey, William
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Maxton, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Michie, William
Torney, Tom


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wareing, Robert


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael


Nellist, David
White, James


O'Brien, William
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Woodall, Alec


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
'That this House confirms that the future of the coal industry will depend on the industry's success in deploying its assets so as to keep coal competitive with other fuels; welcomes the action of the Government in providing more capital investment for the industry than any previous Government in order to achieve a successful future for the industry, noting that their investment of over £3·9 billion has not only far exceeded investment in the industry by the last Labour Government, but has substantially exceeded the scale of investment envisaged in the "Plan for Coal"; welcomes the steps taken by the National Coal Board and the Government to ensure that, in areas where a reduction in uneconomic capacity is being considered, miners affected will be treated more generously and with greater understanding than in the past, to the benefit of mining communities; notes that the early retirement and voluntary redundancy provisions are more generous than those of any other industry, and have helped create a situation in which the National Coal Board can assure any miner now employed that he will be able to continue working as a miner if he desires to do so; welcomes also the action of the National Coal Board to assist mining communities by creating a new enterprise company; and calls upon all those in the industry to co-operate to achieve the higher productivity essential to keep coal competitive and secure the future prosperity of the industry and its employees.'

Dairy Industry (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. James Nicholson: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the difficulties facing Northern Ireland dairy farmers and producers. Farming at the best of times can be a difficult occupation, no matter what enterprise might be pursued by the farmer.
Farming is hard enough when one has to battle against the elements, without having to defend oneself against those whom one would expect to be on one's side. I must place the responsibility on the Minister because when the final negotiations were over we had and still have complete chaos. At times I doubted whether even the Minister knew to what he had agreed. The farmer must live with decisions made far away in Brussels.
All the assurances that were given by the Prime Minister and the Minister about Northern Ireland, before and after the negotiations, quickly disappeared once it was realised what the agreement was and what was supposed to happen in Northern Ireland.
In recognition of the Northern Ireland farmers' dependence upon the grass-based sector they were to receive an extra 65,000 tonnes. That would have meant a cut for the dairy industry but one that could perhaps have been much more easily accepted. What happened was that Northern Ireland farmers did not receive the whole of the extra allowance to which they were entitled. I do not propose to deal with that in any depth. It is a burning issue in Northern Ireland, and has given rise to serious concern. It has been denied repeatedly by the Minister. the Secretary of State and others. I have to be frank, fair. firm and straight, because, no matter what has been said, it has not been believed.
When allocating the United Kingdom quota to the various regions of the United Kingdom, the Government decided to equalise the level of hardship in each region by giving England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland a quota equal to the 1983 milk output minus 5·82 per cent. Not only did this clearly deny Northern Ireland the special treatment that we rightly expect to receive, but in my view Northern Ireland will be more harshly treated than England and Wales or Scotland. This can be supported by an examination of the United Kingdom 1983 December census figures on milk and milk production for the first three months of 1984. It may be enlightening to the House to hear that the increase in cow numbers in December 1983 in England and Wales was 1·8 per cent., in Scotland 1 per cent. and in Northern Ireland 7 per cent.
As to milk output, in January 1984 in England and Wales, the figure was minus 1·6 per cent., in February, minus 1·1 per cent., and in March, minus 2·8 per cent. In Scotland, the figure was minus 0·3 per cent. in January, minus 0·1 per cent. in February, and minus 0·2 per cent. in March. In Northern Ireland, in January, the figure was plus 3 per cent., in February, plus 3·9 per cent., and in March, plus 3·9 per cent. Northern Ireland dairy farmers had, therefore, made a much greater investment in terms of cattle housing facilities and stock than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. A quota of 1983 milk production minus 8·5 per cent. will have a much more serious effect on produce in Northern Ireland.
I fully accept that the quota system will bring hardship to producers in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I am satisfied, after giving serious consideration to the figures, that the level of hardship will be that much greater in Northern Ireland.
The aid proposals recently announced by the Minister will most certainly be of great assistance, but they still do not give enough to help the Northern Ireland farmer. The amount allowed will not cover the hardship cases. Let us examine what the aid proposals will mean to the farmer. The 3 per cent. reserve held back, as part of the 9 per cent. cut in production will mean approximately another 8,500 cows. The buy out scheme, if a sufficient number of farmers decide to make use of it, will mean another 13,500 cows in Northern Ireland, approximately 22,000 cows in total.
At present, I am reliably informed that we have over 2,000 development plans in Northern Ireland. Those schemes are already in operation, and farmers are in the middle of developing and pursuing the schemes. It is nowhere near sufficient to meet their needs, never mind the needs of those who have other special circumstances to meet in the year such as disease, illness in the family or some occurrence that seriously affects milk production in the course of the year.
The proposals presented by the Minister for Northern Ireland mean only a redistribution of the existing quota, and not one litre more to farmers in Northern Ireland. It means that small farmers must get out to make way for larger ones.
In that respect, the sale of quotas has been advocated in some quarters. We must give serious consideration to that before going too far down that road. How will a young man starting out in agriculture stand a chance if, in addition to purchasing land — or, in this part of the United Kingdom, perhaps renting land—and building a herd, he must first, before even beginning to build up his milk production, buy a quota?
The trouble with this whole scheme is that it has been ill-considered, and, in my view, the buy-out scheme has been rushed through when it deserved far more consideration. Farmers with fewer than 40 cows are being hit the hardest. They must be safeguarded because they have no alternative means of surviving. Further, they have not been responsible for the massive surplus of milk.
Many such farmers depend totally on milk production for their livelihood, and we must bear in mind that the Northern Ireland herd average is 38 and that 65 per cent. of Northern Ireland's dairy farmers have fewer than 40 cows. The average herd size in England and Wales is 65 while in Scotland, I am reliably informed, it is 88.
It is interesting to note the average herd sizes in each of the six counties of Northern Ireland. These figures show how affected are farmers in hill areas and small farmers generally. In county Antrim, the average herd size is 41; in county Armagh, my home county, it is 30; in county Down it is the largest, at 53; in county Fermanagh it is 20; in Londonderry it is 40; and in county Tyrone it is 32. The average for Fermanagh, Tyrone and Armagh — the counties with the smallest herd sizes — would be 27 cows. These figures show that Northern Ireland deserved more consideration than it received when the Minister was allocating the quota.
The Northern Ireland dairy industry has suffered because of its price disadvantage and as a result of the much lower proportion of our total output used in the liquid market, and it is worth comparing milk production in Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom.
In England and Wales, 45 per cent. of milk goes into the liquid market; in Scotland, the figure is 42 per cent.; whereas in Northern Ireland, 14·5 per cent. goes into the liquid market. In England and Wales, 55 per cent. goes for manufacturing, 30 per cent. for butter, 15 per cent. for cheese, 6 per cent. for fresh cream and 6 per cent. of other products. In Scotland, 58 per cent. goes to manufacturing, 21 per cent. to butter, 21 per cent. to cheese, 6 per cent. to fresh cream and 10 per cent. to other products. In Northern Ireland, a massive 85·5 per cent. of production goes to the manufacturing end of the milk industry, 55 per cent. goes to butter, 20 per cent. to cheese, 1·5 per cent. to fresh cream, and 9 per cent. to other products.
The Northern Ireland dairy farmer also receives on average 3p per gallon less for his milk than his counterpart in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is all very well for the Minister to speak of equalising the burden, but the Government must learn that they cannot say when it suits them that we shall be treated in the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom, but when it suits them, say, "Ah, but you are different." We are not different when it comes to this and it suits the Government to equalise the burden throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Then we had to have equal rights. On every other occasion, we are told that we are different. That is the crunch issue in this debate.
If the Minister wishes to equalise the burden, he must also be prepared to equalise the price, because Northern Ireland milk producers receive much less than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a galling exercise to watch the Republic of Ireland with its extra quota—ill negotiation again. On every farming programme on television, and every agricultural newspaper, the leaders of the Republic of Ireland's farmers are warning them that they may not be able to produce the extra quota, and they are encouraged to produce more, while other farmers throughout Europe and the United Kingdom are being told to cut back. That is an indictment and shows the unacceptable face of the European Community. That will either have to be changed drastically, or we shall have to get out.
Why should Northern Ireland be treated any differently from any other part of the United Kingdom? I hope that I have outlined the reasons why I believe that Northern Ireland should have had better, more reasonable and fair treatment, such as the small average size of our farms, which are mainly owner-occupied and run by family units that depend totally on the production on their land. The problem also has social aspects, as anyone forced out of milk production by the quotas—as some will be—has few alternatives.
I can give an example of a producer whom I know well. He is supporting himself, his father and his mother on 18 cows and 25 acres. He is happy with his living, which he has had for the past eight years, during which he has not had one cow extra. However, he has been told that he must decrease by 9 per cent., just like everyone else. Is that not wrong? How does one justify that?
Since the entry of the United Kingdom into Europe, and the demise of the intensive sector, farmers in Northern Ireland cannot, and have not, any way in which they can change to alternative enterprises.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that in Northern Ireland, with 120,000 persons unemployed, there is no alternative for the small farmer who may be put out of business?

Mr. Nicholson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Many will be put on the dole queue. Some will have to apply for family income supplement or other assistance. We have to look at it the other way as well. The farmer with 18 cows who cuts by 9 per cent. the size of his herd will be left with only 15 cows. He will miss those cows terribly, but the producer with 200 cows who cuts the size of his herd by the same percentage, by about 20 or 30 cows, will still make a good living while the other gentleman has no chance of making a living. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
The farmers were encouraged to expand, to build new facilities, new silos and new milking parlours, and to produce more and more milk. They did so most efficiently and effectively — so much so that they are now being punished for it. Many farmers who are now suffering most from the quota are those who listened to the Department's advice. Many of them are producing milk not knowing what their quota will be and what price they will receive for that milk. Some are having to provide housing for their additional cows. They have no alternative—they have bank overdrafts and are wholly committed. The scheme was introduced too hastily and without proper and effective thought.
Agriculture's importance to Northern Ireland is paramount. It must be sustained and allowed to grow gradually. The Government must accept that our dependence on agriculture must receive due and proper consideration and the recognition that it deserves. The Government will not be allowed to run away from what they were responsible for creating.
I wish to refer to some of the remarks made by Lord Lyell during a recent speech to the Ulster Farmers Union annual general meeting. I accept that the noble Lord is new to the position of responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland, but he showed a great lack of understanding of the needs of the industry. He suggested that the super-levy would cut 1983 production by 6 per cent; it would reduce our milk sales accordingly; it would demand marginal adjustments for many milk producers; would cause excruciating pain for others; and that it was not the end of the world.
I suggest that the Under-Secretary tells his noble Friend that it will be the end of the world for some of the producers in Northern Ireland if there is no improvement on the present position.
I congratulate the Department on the effective way in which it informed the farmers of the quota. It said that farmers would be given individual advice with computer models representing their farms. What a load of nonsense when men are losing money hand over fist. The Government are taking away their livelihoods and telling them that they will have computer models.
I welcome the Under-Secretary to the House tonight. I appreciate that the subject is not part of his usual duties. I wait with great interest to hear what he has to say.
Finally, I plead with the hon. Gentleman to inform the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that farmers in Northern Ireland and indeed throughout the United Kingdom need to know where they are going and what they are getting very soon and not in August, September or October when it will cost them even more. They have big bills for the milk that they have already produced and they need to know now. The sooner the Minister knuckles down and faces the problem that he has created, the better.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): Following the comment of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson), I must confess that this is indeed the first time that I have taken part in a debate on agriculture. I apologise for the fact that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), cannot be here to reply to the debate as he is in North America trying to encourage industrial investment in the Province. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's original Adjournment debate was the victim of the all-day, all-night discussions on the future, or lack of it, of the Greater London Council. Having put his coin in the slot again he has unfortunately got three lemons. My hon. Friend the Minister of State would have replied incomparably better and more knowledgeably, given all the work that he has done for Northern Ireland agriculture and industry. I hope that if I fail to answer any of the hon. Gentleman's points today that he will have an early reply from my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
I think that most hon. Members agree that something had to be done to curb overproduction of milk in the European Community and to reduce the crippling cost of the CAP milk regime.

Mr. Beggs: I apologise for interrupting the Minister so soon, but will he make it clear that there is still not overproduction of milk in Great Britain as a whole?

Mr. Patten: I hope to come to the general scene in Great Britain later in my remarks.
We could not allow the continued production of massive surpluses which were a drain on the European Community budget and the United Kingdom taxpayer. In 1983 alone, disposal of milk surpluses cost £3,000 million of which Britain's share would have been about £600 million. We should not forget that the United Kingdom also contributes to the stocks of butter and skimmed milk powder in intervention stores and must play its full part in cutting the overproduction of milk. As the House knows, a supplementary levey was not' he Government's preferred: means of dealing with the problem, but we have had to accept it and it is important that we all work together to ensure that it is successful in bringing milk production throughout the Community under control.
It is well known to the House that the allocation of quotas among member states was, with some exceptions, on the basis of 1981 production plus 1 per cent. For the allocation within the United Kingdom it is clear that a 1983 production basis would have been favourable to Northern Ireland but disadvantageous to producers in England and Wales. On the other hand, an allocation based simply on 1981 production levels would have been entirely unacceptable for Northern Ireland, giving a 15 per cent. cut in output as against 1983 or a cut of more than 10 per


cent. after taking account of the 63 million litres allocated to Northern Ireland from the special Community reserve. A simple 1981 base would also have been hard on Scotland. That is because deliveries in Northern Ireland and Scotland increased proportionately more between 1981 and 1983 than deliveries in England and Wales. Therefore, a compromise had to be reached and adjustment was made to reflect the trend in deliveries in different parts of the United Kingdom. As well as the full benefit of the 63 million litres from the Community reserve, a further allocation was made to Northern Ireland so that the reduction on 1983 deliveries would be no more than in other regions of the United Kingdom.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear towards the end of his speech, a 6 per cent. cut in milk production will of course cause the Province many difficulties. That is a matter of common concern to us all and I put on record how vigorously and eloquently the hon. Gentleman has brought those difficulties to the attention of the House in the presence of and with the support of so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Other regions of the United Kingdom, however, will also face problems. It may be exceedingly small comfort for Northern Ireland, but it is certainly true that the situation could have been a lot worse. To put the Northern Ireland position in perspective, the hon. Gentleman should look at the quota in comparison with production in previous years. It represents an increase of 12·5 per cent. on 1981 and 2·5 per cent. on 1982, whereas England and Wales will take a cut of over 3 per cent. on 1982.
However, I do not want to minimise in any way the problems faced by the Northern Ireland industry. I fully appreciate the difficulties that the new situation will create for both producers and processors. They have been pointed out to me, even though I have no direct ministerial responsibility, on a number of my visits to district councils including my visit the other day to Omagh.
The Government recognise that the supplementary levy scheme presents special difficulties to small milk producers who have no alternative to milk and little scope to adapt to a lower level of production. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) announced on 25 May the arrangements for an

outgoers scheme to pay compensation to farmers who wished to give up milk production. Strong representations have been made to the Secretary of State by the Ulster Farmers Union and the Northern Ireland Assembly's agriculture committee, and above all by hon. Members, for emergency aid for the industry. The Government accept that there are likely to be a proportionately greater number of special cases in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, as well as a higher proportion of small dairy farms. I am glad to say that the outgoers scheme reflects the representations made to us—not least by the hon. Gentleman — and recognises the potentially greater problems in northern Ireland.
Up to £8·5 million will be available for Northern Ireland over five years, allowing up to 5 per cent. of quota to be bought up in the Province compared with 2·25 per cent. in Great Britain. There will be sufficient flexibility in the Northern Ireland arrangements not only to enable the quota raised through the outgoers scheme to be used to help small producers but also to assist special cases, assuming that there is sufficient take-up of the outgoers scheme. Compensation payments will be offered to eligible applicants at the rate of £650 per 5,000 litres of quota and payable in equal instalments over five years. Those accepting compensation payments could be required to give an undertaking that they will give up milk production for at least as long as the quota scheme, or any successor scheme, continues, and will not directly or indirectly return to milk production.
We are consulting the interests concerned on the detailed arrangements for the implementation of the scheme, and the necessary legislation will be sought as soon as possible. Detailed arrangements on how the scheme will operate, and how to apply, will be announced shortly.
The Community regulations make provision for two main categories of special situation to be taken into account when milk quotas are being allocated. First, there are those producers whose milk production during the reference year——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.